Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #55085 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jim <njbetts@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-24 15:05 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-27 01:21 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 189 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
The Wikipedia article on Forth jim <njbetts@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 15:05 -0800
The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 15:14 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-24 23:38 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-25 04:51 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-02-25 13:00 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-26 14:29 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 09:30 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 02:44 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 03:12 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 03:25 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-26 14:00 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 14:32 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 22:58 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 15:29 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 21:57 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 19:17 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 22:21 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-26 15:41 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-26 14:46 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-26 17:08 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-26 15:18 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 14:20 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 17:47 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 15:16 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 19:04 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 21:52 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 01:12 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:33 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 19:23 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 08:04 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-27 18:54 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:17 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-28 03:50 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 05:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-28 13:59 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 08:25 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-27 23:00 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-02-28 11:51 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 05:19 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 19:34 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:42 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-10 10:16 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 18:21 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-09 23:44 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 19:55 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-10 11:24 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-10 13:38 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-11 12:08 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-09 16:34 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 22:43 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-11 15:23 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-10 21:17 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-11 12:06 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 05:32 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-12 11:17 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 13:18 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-12 14:59 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-12 15:00 -0400
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-13 10:43 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-13 07:57 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-13 10:26 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-10 03:27 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-10 08:47 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-11 01:57 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 10:00 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 18:32 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 11:52 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 20:23 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 11:21 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 19:41 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 11:55 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 20:14 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 12:37 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 14:26 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-27 14:10 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 19:43 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-27 04:13 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 14:31 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-28 03:53 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-27 13:15 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 02:22 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-27 15:52 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-28 14:44 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-27 22:55 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-04 21:38 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 06:11 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-04 12:21 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 13:27 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-03-05 08:50 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 15:12 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-05 18:25 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 02:38 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-07 18:20 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 02:45 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-07 08:54 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 04:42 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-07 04:06 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@nothishetnet.nl> - 2017-03-07 13:02 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 18:43 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-07 22:04 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 19:49 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 19:02 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 10:06 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 03:35 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-08 13:41 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-08 15:29 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-08 15:10 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-07 08:31 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:03 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-11 22:56 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 05:36 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-12 15:14 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 19:46 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-04 12:09 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth alex@rivadpm.com - 2017-03-05 15:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-05 22:05 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2017-03-04 07:23 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:11 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 07:25 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-05 19:10 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 04:27 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-05 18:24 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-07 18:16 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-07 11:35 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-07 17:13 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 19:10 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 03:38 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 10:18 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:41 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-11 16:50 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 09:56 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-12 14:31 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-15 23:54 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 19:00 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 21:27 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 21:39 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 22:13 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-16 10:20 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 19:42 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 19:39 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 05:48 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 01:26 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 05:33 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-06 04:33 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-06 17:16 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-06 12:28 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 11:10 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 11:12 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 15:22 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-07 02:51 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-07 13:13 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 14:50 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 12:06 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 16:00 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2017-03-07 13:18 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 00:16 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 03:04 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 09:52 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 05:09 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 14:05 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 12:05 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 03:00 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:53 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 23:19 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-11 17:01 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 10:12 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 07:02 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 12:43 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 12:28 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-12 16:29 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 16:16 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-12 21:42 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 19:13 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 01:33 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-10 10:37 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-04 18:35 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-27 23:12 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-27 13:13 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-27 23:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-28 07:49 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:32 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-25 11:55 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-24 22:14 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@nothishetnet.nl> - 2017-02-26 15:15 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 20:02 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 23:08 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-26 23:27 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 01:21 -0500
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 04:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9glj1$sod$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55422 |
On 3/5/2017 3:10 AM, HAA wrote: > Julian Fondren wrote: >> On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 4:36:06 AM UTC-6, HAA wrote: >>> Paul Rubin wrote: >>>> "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: >>>>> You talk about 'what the Forth community wants'. If it wanted a >>>>> standard then I'd expect Forth Inc users to be banging on the door >>>>> demanding 200x be implemented. >>>> >>>> Is 200x a standard rather than a draft of one? Is the Forth community >>>> satisfied that it already has a standard (ANS) with 200x being a >>>> refinement, like more recent iterations of the C standard? >>>> >>>> The C standard is important and influential, but people mostly follow >>>> C99 even though C11 is a thing. There's an update in the works but not >>>> that many users are really clamoring for it. >>> >>> You're suggesting there are Standard supporters who are happy to stay >>> with ANS? Maybe, but it's hard finding anyone to admit it. >>> >> >> There are two questions you can ask. >> ... > > Asking is pointless when someone doesn't want to answer. Better to look > at what they do (or in this case, don't). I've suggested on several occasions > Forth Inc is not committed to 200x and nobody has challenged it. Maybe because no one cares??? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 18:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <W4ydnZwO38r3VSHFnZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55422 |
On 3/5/17 12:10 AM, HAA wrote: > Julian Fondren wrote: >> On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 4:36:06 AM UTC-6, HAA wrote: >>> Paul Rubin wrote: >>>> "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: >>>>> You talk about 'what the Forth community wants'. If it wanted a >>>>> standard then I'd expect Forth Inc users to be banging on the door >>>>> demanding 200x be implemented. >>>> >>>> Is 200x a standard rather than a draft of one? Is the Forth community >>>> satisfied that it already has a standard (ANS) with 200x being a >>>> refinement, like more recent iterations of the C standard? >>>> >>>> The C standard is important and influential, but people mostly follow >>>> C99 even though C11 is a thing. There's an update in the works but not >>>> that many users are really clamoring for it. >>> >>> You're suggesting there are Standard supporters who are happy to stay >>> with ANS? Maybe, but it's hard finding anyone to admit it. >>> >> >> There are two questions you can ask. >> ... > > Asking is pointless when someone doesn't want to answer. Better to look > at what they do (or in this case, don't). I've suggested on several occasions > Forth Inc is not committed to 200x and nobody has challenged it. Leon Wagner, from FORTH, Inc., has been a regular attendee at Standards meetings for a number of years, making the long trip from California to do so. I believe he has made good contributions. You should ask him about plans to implement 200x features. Cheers, Elizabeth -- Elizabeth R. Conklin FORTH, Inc. 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90045 USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-07 18:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o9lmnj$16f9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55430 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 3/5/17 12:10 AM, HAA wrote: > > Julian Fondren wrote: > >> On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 4:36:06 AM UTC-6, HAA wrote: > >>> Paul Rubin wrote: > >>>> "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: > >>>>> You talk about 'what the Forth community wants'. If it wanted a > >>>>> standard then I'd expect Forth Inc users to be banging on the door > >>>>> demanding 200x be implemented. > >>>> > >>>> Is 200x a standard rather than a draft of one? Is the Forth community > >>>> satisfied that it already has a standard (ANS) with 200x being a > >>>> refinement, like more recent iterations of the C standard? > >>>> > >>>> The C standard is important and influential, but people mostly follow > >>>> C99 even though C11 is a thing. There's an update in the works but not > >>>> that many users are really clamoring for it. > >>> > >>> You're suggesting there are Standard supporters who are happy to stay > >>> with ANS? Maybe, but it's hard finding anyone to admit it. > >>> > >> > >> There are two questions you can ask. > >> ... > > > > Asking is pointless when someone doesn't want to answer. Better to look > > at what they do (or in this case, don't). I've suggested on several occasions > > Forth Inc is not committed to 200x and nobody has challenged it. > > Leon Wagner, from FORTH, Inc., has been a regular attendee at Standards > meetings for a number of years, making the long trip from California to > do so. I believe he has made good contributions. You should ask him > about plans to implement 200x features. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth If I were the 200x TC I'd certainly be asking that question. It's not a good look for 200x when one of the two major vendors on the team has implemented only one new feature in the ~13 years 200x has been in session.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-07 11:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <58be9a2e.506405999@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #55482 |
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:16:07 +1100, "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote: >If I were the 200x TC I'd certainly be asking that question. It's not a good look >for 200x when one of the two major vendors on the team has implemented >only one new feature in the ~13 years 200x has been in session. You'll find that the features adopted rapidly by implementers are ones that interest or concern the implementers. MPE and Forth Inc may/will have different issues. Leon and I discussed provision and uptake of Forth-2012 features very recently. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-07 17:13 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <vKGdnRUi6bta6yLFnZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55482 |
On 3/6/17 9:16 PM, HAA wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 3/5/17 12:10 AM, HAA wrote: >>> Julian Fondren wrote: >>>> On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 4:36:06 AM UTC-6, HAA wrote: >>>>> Paul Rubin wrote: >>>>>> "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: >>>>>>> You talk about 'what the Forth community wants'. If it wanted a >>>>>>> standard then I'd expect Forth Inc users to be banging on the door >>>>>>> demanding 200x be implemented. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is 200x a standard rather than a draft of one? Is the Forth community >>>>>> satisfied that it already has a standard (ANS) with 200x being a >>>>>> refinement, like more recent iterations of the C standard? >>>>>> >>>>>> The C standard is important and influential, but people mostly follow >>>>>> C99 even though C11 is a thing. There's an update in the works but not >>>>>> that many users are really clamoring for it. >>>>> >>>>> You're suggesting there are Standard supporters who are happy to stay >>>>> with ANS? Maybe, but it's hard finding anyone to admit it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There are two questions you can ask. >>>> ... >>> >>> Asking is pointless when someone doesn't want to answer. Better to look >>> at what they do (or in this case, don't). I've suggested on several occasions >>> Forth Inc is not committed to 200x and nobody has challenged it. >> >> Leon Wagner, from FORTH, Inc., has been a regular attendee at Standards >> meetings for a number of years, making the long trip from California to >> do so. I believe he has made good contributions. You should ask him >> about plans to implement 200x features. >> >> Cheers, >> Elizabeth > > If I were the 200x TC I'd certainly be asking that question. It's not a good look > for 200x when one of the two major vendors on the team has implemented > only one new feature in the ~13 years 200x has been in session. Well, I see up-thread that Anton asked Leon, and reported the (quite reasonable, IMO) answer. My *personal* opinion (remember, I am retired now) is that most of the new features are cute frills with little impact, which would explain why there's no rush to implement them. Leon and his colleagues are really quick to implement anything that will make their work easier or systems more useful to clients. Cheers, Elizabeth -- Elizabeth R. Conklin FORTH, Inc. 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90045 USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-08 19:10 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o9oe6s$568$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55519 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 3/6/17 9:16 PM, HAA wrote: > > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> On 3/5/17 12:10 AM, HAA wrote: > >>> ... > >>> Asking is pointless when someone doesn't want to answer. Better to look > >>> at what they do (or in this case, don't). I've suggested on several occasions > >>> Forth Inc is not committed to 200x and nobody has challenged it. > >> > >> Leon Wagner, from FORTH, Inc., has been a regular attendee at Standards > >> meetings for a number of years, making the long trip from California to > >> do so. I believe he has made good contributions. You should ask him > >> about plans to implement 200x features. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Elizabeth > > > > If I were the 200x TC I'd certainly be asking that question. It's not a good look > > for 200x when one of the two major vendors on the team has implemented > > only one new feature in the ~13 years 200x has been in session. > > Well, I see up-thread that Anton asked Leon, and reported the (quite > reasonable, IMO) answer. My *personal* opinion (remember, I am retired > now) is that most of the new features are cute frills with little > impact, which would explain why there's no rush to implement them. Leon > and his colleagues are really quick to implement anything that will make > their work easier or systems more useful to clients. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth I would have thought TRAVERSE-WORDLIST a low priority feature. Based on personal experience when Forth Inc says 'yes, we'll do that when we have time', I wouldn't be holding my breath. But this is 200x' problem - it's their credibility that's on the line.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-08 03:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9ofo0$d21$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55526 |
On 3/8/2017 3:10 AM, HAA wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 3/6/17 9:16 PM, HAA wrote: >>> Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>>> On 3/5/17 12:10 AM, HAA wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> Asking is pointless when someone doesn't want to answer. Better to look >>>>> at what they do (or in this case, don't). I've suggested on several occasions >>>>> Forth Inc is not committed to 200x and nobody has challenged it. >>>> >>>> Leon Wagner, from FORTH, Inc., has been a regular attendee at Standards >>>> meetings for a number of years, making the long trip from California to >>>> do so. I believe he has made good contributions. You should ask him >>>> about plans to implement 200x features. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Elizabeth >>> >>> If I were the 200x TC I'd certainly be asking that question. It's not a good look >>> for 200x when one of the two major vendors on the team has implemented >>> only one new feature in the ~13 years 200x has been in session. >> >> Well, I see up-thread that Anton asked Leon, and reported the (quite >> reasonable, IMO) answer. My *personal* opinion (remember, I am retired >> now) is that most of the new features are cute frills with little >> impact, which would explain why there's no rush to implement them. Leon >> and his colleagues are really quick to implement anything that will make >> their work easier or systems more useful to clients. >> >> Cheers, >> Elizabeth > > I would have thought TRAVERSE-WORDLIST a low priority feature. > Based on personal experience when Forth Inc says 'yes, we'll do that > when we have time', I wouldn't be holding my breath. But this is 200x' > problem - it's their credibility that's on the line. So you are saying that Forth, Inc is "incredible"? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-08 10:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Mar8.111818@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #55526 |
"HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:
>I would have thought TRAVERSE-WORDLIST a low priority feature.
Commercial Forth vendors tend to think like this. "You can already do
this in CommercialForth (using carnal knowledge)" or "Application
programmers don't need this" is certainly along the lines of what I
have read more than once from commercial Forth vendors over the years.
It's a miracle that TRAVERSE-WORDLIST actually came through.
Interestingly, IIRC in the next meeting after we standardized
TRAVERSE-WORLIST Leon Wagner reported that his customers found it
useful. We don't get this kind of feedback very often.
In any case, I just looked, and TRAVERSE-WORDLIST is in SwiftForth
i386-Linux 3.6.3 29-Jun-2016.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 22:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa1ufe$u80$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55519 |
Am Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:13:11 -1000 schrieb Elizabeth D. Rather: > Leon and his colleagues are really quick to implement anything that will > make their work easier or systems more useful to clients. My experience with new standards in another world, the world of hardware description languages, suggest that it's not your customers who push you. The issue there however, is different: When I write code in Verilog, it has to pass through at least four different toolchains: The simulator to see if it works at all. The FPGA synthesis to get a prototype running. The ASIC synthesis to get production silicon. And a formal verification tool to check if that went right. There might be more tools... but that's the essential set. It is likely that each of them comes from a different vendor. So you can only use a new feature if all four vendors have implemented it. Even when these new features are not "cute frills", but the best thing since sliced bread. I like Leon, and value his input. The question this slow adoption rate poses: Is he in the TC as a vendor representative, or as individual with a lot of experience and knowledge? A number of individuals in the TC don't have their own implementation, that is fine. If Andrew Haley tells me, he thinks recognizers take Forth's malleability a step too far, I understand that this is a personal opinion, and that this is his feeling about the proposal. I understand that it changes "Forth syntax is: words in a dictionary, numbers, errors" to "Forth syntax is: A list of user- and system-defined extraction rules". Yes, that is a significant change. But Leon says something like "The idea is good, but our customers have code with <property x>, and won't change their code, so the proposal needs to be compatible with that", then he loses credibility if Forth Inc. actually doesn't implement Forth-2012. We don't need to care much about that system, because it won't be hurt by whatever we put in the new standard, as it will stick to ANS Forth and maybe cherry-pick just a few words. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 16:50 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <m-WdnR-fAab7KlnFnZ2dnUU7-SvNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55641 |
On 3/11/17 12:41 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Am Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:13:11 -1000 schrieb Elizabeth D. Rather:
>> Leon and his colleagues are really quick to implement anything that will
>> make their work easier or systems more useful to clients.
>
> My experience with new standards in another world, the world of hardware
> description languages, suggest that it's not your customers who push
> you. The issue there however, is different: When I write code in Verilog,
> it has to pass through at least four different toolchains: The simulator
> to see if it works at all. The FPGA synthesis to get a prototype
> running. The ASIC synthesis to get production silicon. And a formal
> verification tool to check if that went right. There might be more
> tools... but that's the essential set. It is likely that each of them
> comes from a different vendor. So you can only use a new feature if all
> four vendors have implemented it. Even when these new features are not
> "cute frills", but the best thing since sliced bread.
>
> I like Leon, and value his input. The question this slow adoption rate
> poses: Is he in the TC as a vendor representative, or as individual with
> a lot of experience and knowledge? A number of individuals in the TC
> don't have their own implementation, that is fine. If Andrew Haley tells
> me, he thinks recognizers take Forth's malleability a step too far, I
> understand that this is a personal opinion, and that this is his feeling
> about the proposal. I understand that it changes "Forth syntax is: words
> in a dictionary, numbers, errors" to "Forth syntax is: A list of user-
> and system-defined extraction rules". Yes, that is a significant change.
>
> But Leon says something like "The idea is good, but our customers have
> code with <property x>, and won't change their code, so the proposal
> needs to be compatible with that", then he loses credibility if Forth
> Inc. actually doesn't implement Forth-2012. We don't need to care much
> about that system, because it won't be hurt by whatever we put in the new
> standard, as it will stick to ANS Forth and maybe cherry-pick just a few
> words.
I cannot speak for Leon, but this may clarify FORTH, Inc.'s position
somewhat: The Forth94 locals are used in SwiftForth, mostly for managing
Windows calls, many of which have lots of parameters. Last time I
checked, no locals were supported in SwiftX targets. Leon, by habit,
doesn't use them, nor do most of our engineers and, last I heard, most
of our customers. Leon rightly resisted the use of { for locals because
there are millions of lines of code in both our products and
applications written in the last 30 or so years, that would have to
change. He hasn't implemented {: because retrofitting SwiftForth would
be a huge job and he has other priorities.
Leon is very sensitive to customer requests; if there were a demand for
{: style locals, I am quite sure he would provide them.
Cheers,
Elizabeth
--
Elizabeth R. Conklin
FORTH, Inc.
6080 Center Drive, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90045
USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 09:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Mar12.105633@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #55664 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>He hasn't implemented {: because retrofitting SwiftForth would
>be a huge job and he has other priorities.
Retrofitting SwiftForth (whatever that means) may be a huge job, but
implementing the {: :} syntax in SwiftForth isn't:
[/tmp:93231] wget http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x-code.zip
...
[/tmp:93232] unzip forth200x-code.zip
...
[/tmp:93234] sf "include forth200x-code/extensions/parse-name.fs include forth200x-code/extensions/locals.fs"
ok
: foo {: a b | c :} a b - to c 1 c + . ; ok
5 3 foo 3 ok
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 14:31 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <OMudnVO_ve7jdVjFnZ2dnUU7-bXNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55677 |
On 3/11/17 11:56 PM, Anton Ertl wrote:
> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>> He hasn't implemented {: because retrofitting SwiftForth would
>> be a huge job and he has other priorities.
>
> Retrofitting SwiftForth (whatever that means) may be a huge job, but
> implementing the {: :} syntax in SwiftForth isn't:
>
> [/tmp:93231] wget http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x-code.zip
> ...
> [/tmp:93232] unzip forth200x-code.zip
> ...
> [/tmp:93234] sf "include forth200x-code/extensions/parse-name.fs include forth200x-code/extensions/locals.fs"
> ok
> : foo {: a b | c :} a b - to c 1 c + . ; ok
> 5 3 foo 3 ok
The issue is that the locals are on the stack in the opposite order with
the two versions. Our principal use of locals is with Windows call
parameters, which can be numerous. The prospect of latent bugs resulting
from changing all our Windows calls is awesome, and having *both*
versions available for users (some of whom may be using locals a lot) is
likewise a recipe for trouble for them!
I haven't discussed this with Leon and don't know if that's his
rationale, but it makes sense to me.
Cheers,
Elizabeth
--
Elizabeth R. Conklin
FORTH, Inc.
6080 Center Drive, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90045
USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 23:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oack7f$bgh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55717 |
Am Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:31:56 -1000 schrieb Elizabeth D. Rather:
> The issue is that the locals are on the stack in the opposite order with
> the two versions. Our principal use of locals is with Windows call
> parameters, which can be numerous. The prospect of latent bugs resulting
> from changing all our Windows calls is awesome, and having *both*
> versions available for users (some of whom may be using locals a lot) is
> likewise a recipe for trouble for them!
LOCALS| doesn't change its order when you have {: .. :}. I agree that it
might be confusing to use {: and LOCALS| in the same program, especially
if you got through all the troubles to remember by heart that LOCALS| is
all backwards. That's confusing... but that's already confusing when you
compare LOCALS| to the stack effect conventions.
That's why we all didn't use LOCALS| but added { to our systems and used
that exclusively. Except Forth Inc... well, your team doesn't use locals
much. Just where it's absolutely necessary, like with Windows calls...
and that's mostly something your customer do. I think this is a "not
eating your own dogfood" problem.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 19:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1d43e34-1538-433e-89fd-d39c49a9b404@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55834 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 4:57:16 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Am Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:31:56 -1000 schrieb Elizabeth D. Rather:
> > The issue is that the locals are on the stack in the opposite order with
> > the two versions. Our principal use of locals is with Windows call
> > parameters, which can be numerous. The prospect of latent bugs resulting
> > from changing all our Windows calls is awesome, and having *both*
> > versions available for users (some of whom may be using locals a lot) is
> > likewise a recipe for trouble for them!
>
> LOCALS| doesn't change its order when you have {: .. :}. I agree that it
> might be confusing to use {: and LOCALS| in the same program, especially
> if you got through all the troubles to remember by heart that LOCALS| is
> all backwards. That's confusing... but that's already confusing when you
> compare LOCALS| to the stack effect conventions.
>
> That's why we all didn't use LOCALS| but added { to our systems and used
> that exclusively. Except Forth Inc... well, your team doesn't use locals
> much. Just where it's absolutely necessary, like with Windows calls...
> and that's mostly something your customer do. I think this is a "not
> eating your own dogfood" problem.
Elizabeth Rather is opposed to local variables. This results in two problems.
1.) Data is typically passed between functions in global variables, which is not reentrant, so if a function is using a global variable and calls another function that uses that global variable for something else the caller's value gets clobbered.
2.) Data is hard-coded into functions rather than passed in as parameters. Examples are Andrew Haley's array definer or Wil Baden's array sort both of which hard-code the element size as one cell. If you want a function of floats or doubles, then a new array definer and a new array sort need to be written that hard-code the new element size.
My array definer ARY and array sort SORT have the element size passed in as a parameter. This results in yet one more parameter being needed, so both use local variables --- if you have too many parameters and don't use local variables, then you get a mess of stack-juggling and/or >R R> usage --- local variables allow general-purpose code to be written because general-purpose code typically has more parameters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 21:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <496878d3-33da-4021-97ae-dd8e8abc35d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55837 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 7:00:05 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > 2.) Data is hard-coded into functions rather than passed in as parameters. Examples are Andrew Haley's array definer or Wil Baden's array sort both of which hard-code the element size as one cell. If you want a function of floats or doubles, then a new array definer and a new array sort need to be written that hard-code the new element size. That was a typo --- I meant: "If you want an array of floats or doubles, then a new array definer and a new array sort need to be written that hard-code the new element size."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 21:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9952bb11-3ebd-4ad2-9c1c-ad1fa910fd8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55717 |
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 5:32:03 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 3/11/17 11:56 PM, Anton Ertl wrote:
> > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
> >> He hasn't implemented {: because retrofitting SwiftForth would
> >> be a huge job and he has other priorities.
> >
> > Retrofitting SwiftForth (whatever that means) may be a huge job, but
> > implementing the {: :} syntax in SwiftForth isn't:
> >
> > [/tmp:93231] wget http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x-code.zip
> > ...
> > [/tmp:93232] unzip forth200x-code.zip
> > ...
> > [/tmp:93234] sf "include forth200x-code/extensions/parse-name.fs include forth200x-code/extensions/locals.fs"
> > ok
> > : foo {: a b | c :} a b - to c 1 c + . ; ok
> > 5 3 foo 3 ok
>
> The issue is that the locals are on the stack in the opposite order with
> the two versions. Our principal use of locals is with Windows call
> parameters, which can be numerous. The prospect of latent bugs resulting
> from changing all our Windows calls is awesome, and having *both*
> versions available for users (some of whom may be using locals a lot) is
> likewise a recipe for trouble for them!
>
> I haven't discussed this with Leon and don't know if that's his
> rationale, but it makes sense to me.
Forthers have used the John Hopkins format with the { ... } names since the late 1980s. Only Forth Inc. used { ... } for multi-line comments. But Forth-200x is owned by Forth Inc., so you changed the local variable definers to {: ... :} and forced the entire Forth community to rewrite all of their legacy code that used { ... } for local variable definers. The prospect of latent bugs from changing all of these programs was awesome --- but you didn't care --- you only care about Forth Inc..
You say that Leon Wagner "hasn't implemented {: because retrofitting SwiftForth would be a huge job and he has other priorities."
LOL That is just incompetence --- you don't know how to write basic Forth code.
He could just download the novice-package --- I have had { ... } written in ANS-Forth since 2009 --- it was not a huge job.
Forth Inc. is grossly arrogant toward the Forth community --- Forth Inc.'s contribution to Forth has been entirely negative --- the only way that Forth can ever succeed is for Forth Inc. to first get jettisoned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 22:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4512e891-009d-4226-87c4-c564eb4b5033@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55839 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 9:39:10 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> Forthers have used the John Hopkins format with the { ... } names since the late 1980s. Only Forth Inc. used { ... } for multi-line comments. But Forth-200x is owned by Forth Inc., so you changed the local variable definers to {: ... :} and forced the entire Forth community to rewrite all of their legacy code that used { ... } for local variable definers. The prospect of latent bugs from changing all of these programs was awesome --- but you didn't care --- you only care about Forth Inc..
It has been argued that { is not in Forth-200x, either as a multi-line comment of SwiftForth or as the traditional John Hopkins format for local variable definers. So, it is argued that { can be used for local variable definers without being non-standard. VFX has both { ... } and {: ... :} for local variable definers, so you could use either.
Your VFX code won't be portable to SwiftForth if you use { ... } for local variable definers however. SwiftForth programs may use { ... } for multi-line comments, and if there is a } inside of a function (being used as part of the local variable definers) the multi-line comment { will find it and assume that it is the end of the comment. Chaos will result. When this happens, Elizabeth Rather will accuse you of writing a non-standard program because SwiftForth is standard by fiat --- if your program doesn't work under SwiftForth then you program is assumed to be at fault --- it is impossible to complain that SwiftForth is at fault because Elizabeth Rather is the "leading expert" on Forth, and you aren't.
In the novice-package I have this for multi-line comments:
: comment ( delimiter -- ) \ Use a delimiter that isn't in your code. The & usually works.
begin dup parse? nip nip while
refill 0= abort" *** COMMENT never found its delimiter ***"
repeat
drop ;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-16 10:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <58ca65f7.24849914@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #55717 |
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:31:56 -1000, "Elizabeth D. Rather"
<erather@forth.com> wrote:
>The issue is that the locals are on the stack in the opposite order with
>the two versions. Our principal use of locals is with Windows call
>parameters, which can be numerous. The prospect of latent bugs resulting
>from changing all our Windows calls is awesome, and having *both*
>versions available for users (some of whom may be using locals a lot) is
>likewise a recipe for trouble for them!
Because the "feel" of the {: ... :} notation is so different from that
of the LOCALS| ... | notation, there are actually very few problems
in systems that provide both notations. In systems with both
notations, {: ... :} is used far more than LOCALS| ... |. Users
just prefer the brace notation.
There is no need to change existing code.
Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 19:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c28b913-25b4-4aff-9a6c-cc4912bd5009@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55677 |
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:07:21 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote:
> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
> >He hasn't implemented {: because retrofitting SwiftForth would
> >be a huge job and he has other priorities.
>
> Retrofitting SwiftForth (whatever that means) may be a huge job, but
> implementing the {: :} syntax in SwiftForth isn't:
I agree that writing { is easy --- I did this in 2010 and put it in the novice-package.
You screwed up the job though. You failed to zero-initialize the locals to the right of the | --- these locals need to be zero-initialized so they are the same thing every time --- if these are initialized to an undefined value, then the program will do different things on different compilations or different runs (in the case where the programmer forgets to explicitly initialize them).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 19:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <321bbee4-bff9-4346-8b56-8102d88cc793@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55664 |
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 7:50:19 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> I cannot speak for Leon, but this may clarify FORTH, Inc.'s position
> somewhat: The Forth94 locals are used in SwiftForth, mostly for managing
> Windows calls, many of which have lots of parameters. Last time I
> checked, no locals were supported in SwiftX targets. Leon, by habit,
> doesn't use them, nor do most of our engineers and, last I heard, most
> of our customers. Leon rightly resisted the use of { for locals because
> there are millions of lines of code in both our products and
> applications written in the last 30 or so years, that would have to
> change. He hasn't implemented {: because retrofitting SwiftForth would
> be a huge job and he has other priorities.
You are imposing your own imcompetence on the entire Forth community --- you are too dumb to understand the usefulness of locals --- so you want to ban locals, or at least give them a goofy syntax.
> Leon is very sensitive to customer requests; if there were a demand for
> {: style locals, I am quite sure he would provide them.
Forth Inc. customers can go to hell --- I don't care about them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web