Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #55968 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-20 09:58 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-03-24 17:52 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 212 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 09:58 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-20 10:34 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 10:51 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-20 18:08 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! NN <november.nihal@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 12:19 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 05:51 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 15:04 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-21 11:22 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 14:47 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 01:34 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-25 17:27 +1100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-25 00:06 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-25 01:02 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-25 01:05 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-27 12:11 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-27 15:53 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-26 22:12 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-29 10:30 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-25 09:34 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! mhx@iae.nl - 2017-03-25 03:46 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-27 10:56 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-28 10:07 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! mhx@iae.nl - 2017-03-27 16:46 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-27 18:51 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-27 17:21 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 10:57 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! minforth@arcor.de - 2017-03-28 01:16 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-28 03:36 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! minforth@arcor.de - 2017-03-28 01:54 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-28 12:57 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-28 03:51 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-29 10:29 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 03:33 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 05:17 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 09:42 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 09:49 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 12:12 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 10:28 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-21 16:43 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-21 14:11 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-21 16:46 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 12:32 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 10:57 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 14:10 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 12:50 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 15:29 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 14:01 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-22 03:23 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-04-07 09:26 +0200
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-07 10:10 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-21 16:42 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-22 13:10 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 06:38 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-22 15:24 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-22 08:52 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-25 13:55 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-25 17:41 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 07:43 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 08:06 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 10:01 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 10:19 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 10:59 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-22 18:31 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 13:55 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 05:50 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-23 08:05 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-23 13:47 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 15:31 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-23 10:25 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-24 18:07 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 10:45 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 03:50 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-03 05:57 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 12:08 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 12:26 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 16:02 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 16:08 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 16:35 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 18:28 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-04 10:14 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 12:44 +0200
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-04 12:32 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 06:49 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! crc <charles.childers@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 04:50 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-04 13:14 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-05 11:19 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 04:16 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-05 12:35 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 13:55 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-03 17:04 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 07:29 +0300
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 02:52 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-05-04 05:08 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 06:34 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-04 11:17 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2017-05-03 19:03 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-24 18:12 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-25 13:49 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-23 00:58 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-23 00:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-22 20:55 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 18:05 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 15:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-25 10:29 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 04:00 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 08:01 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-04 16:06 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 14:02 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-23 00:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-22 20:59 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-23 12:14 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-23 14:45 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-23 12:24 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-28 10:55 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-27 17:24 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-29 10:49 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-28 15:05 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 19:06 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 06:43 +0300
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-30 10:37 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-29 19:34 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-23 10:36 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-23 11:33 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-23 14:58 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-24 17:57 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-24 22:32 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 17:10 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-25 07:31 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-04-07 08:50 +0200
Re: Make Forth Small Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 17:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 10:09 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 10:28 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 07:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-03 13:07 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 16:03 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-20 14:08 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 17:51 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! minforth@arcor.de - 2017-03-20 13:12 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! bruehlconsult@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 17:22 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 19:12 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 02:30 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! minforth@arcor.de - 2017-03-21 02:47 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 05:56 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 16:07 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-21 14:28 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-28 11:30 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-21 16:42 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-21 22:56 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 04:04 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-23 00:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 02:32 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-24 10:00 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 06:46 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-24 14:41 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 15:32 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-25 23:10 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 17:29 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-25 18:08 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-26 08:30 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-26 08:50 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 15:14 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-27 08:32 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 13:21 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-27 15:31 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-27 09:04 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-03-27 11:52 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-27 18:41 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-03-27 12:58 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-27 12:07 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-03-27 13:06 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 11:30 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-28 20:06 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-29 14:54 +0200
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 19:13 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-27 21:18 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 10:54 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 21:53 +0300
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-27 22:29 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 14:07 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 16:03 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-31 09:28 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 03:36 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-31 19:29 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 04:37 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-01 09:23 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 10:37 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-01 11:55 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 14:15 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 12:55 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-07 12:08 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-07 09:04 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 21:35 +0200
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-04-01 20:35 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 11:52 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 16:31 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 20:54 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 21:13 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 16:06 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-31 09:42 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 03:52 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 20:26 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-27 04:55 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-27 08:49 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 13:35 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 14:23 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 15:28 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 23:20 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 02:29 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 03:20 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-31 03:38 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-24 09:17 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 17:52 -0700
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
| From | Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 10:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aae171fa-9a18-4541-93fc-51ebea5b826d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56121 |
Am Mittwoch, 22. März 2017 18:01:07 UTC+1 schrieb hughag...@gmail.com: > On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 8:06:23 AM UTC-7, Helmar Wodtke wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 22. März 2017 15:43:27 UTC+1 schrieb hughag...@gmail.com: > > > On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 6:13:59 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > > > > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > > > > >I don't think that > > > > >anyone would much enjoy using an embedded system without HEX. > > > > > > > > HEX is not just obsolete, it's a bad idea to use it. Better use $ff > > > > for input and HEX. for output. > > > > > > Anton Ertl is inadvertently shining a spotlight on yet another stupid aspect of Elizabeth Rather's toy language. > > > > > > When QUIT executes (typically when ABORT or ABORT" call it), QUIT fails to restore the system to a known state. > > > 1.) BASE still has the value that it had prior to the abort. > > > 2.) The search-order is the same as it was prior to the abort. > > > 3.) The current word-list is the same as it was prior to the abort. > > > > > > If compilation of a file aborts, it often happens that the user is left in the REPL and nothing works. Numbers don't work as expected because BASE is not decimal. None of the words work as expected because the search-order is screwed up. This can be truly baffling! It is baffling for me, although with my experience I can get it back into a rational state. Most novices will think that the Forth system is fatally corrupted and they will just kill the whole Forth system. Whether they feel inspired to restart Forth again, is dubious --- many will just say: "Forth sucks! I was just writing a simple program, and I must have had a bug, but then everything went haywire and the system began behaving in a truly bizarre manner. I'm going back to programming in C again!" > > > > > > The intelligent design for a Forth system would be for QUIT to restore global variables (such as BASE the search-order, etc.) that describe the state of the Forth system. Also, though, it would be a good idea if the contents of these global variables prior to QUIT were dumped into a snapshot data-structure so the user could examine these values to help him determine what caused the abort (quite often in a cross-compiler, getting the search-order screwed up is the cause of the abort; that is a very common bug). Also, the intelligent design for a Forth system would be for QUIT to be vectored. This is so the user can write a custom QUIT that restores some of his own global variables that describe the state of the Forth system for him. > > > > > > ANS-Forth was not an intelligent design. ANS-Forth was just the corpse of Charles Moore's 1970s Forth system warmed up and goaded into walking --- ANS-Forth is a zombie --- it is dead, but it just keeps on lurching forward into the future with flat-line neural activity. > > > > > > The Forth-200x committee, who are supposedly experts in Forth (so they say), are just sitting on their "little pink cloud" pretending that there is nothing wrong with ANS-Forth --- they are deeply delusional --- everybody in the world thinks that they are stupid, and have thought so since 1994. > > > > > > The only way for Forth to succeed is for ANS-Forth to be killed for good --- ANS-Forth makes the Forth community look stupid every day, in multiple ways --- anything would be better than ANS-Forth! > > > How about you make a proposal for that "anything"? You claim to be intelligent. Or is this not your job? Your job is just to be offensive? > > I have a document describing Straight Forth --- the first chapter, anyway --- I have shown it to Forth programmers (not on comp.lang.forth) and have gotten useful feedback that may cause me to change the design. > > A fundamental principle of Straight Forth came from Ilya Vasilyev --- I hadn't thought of that --- I immediately recognized it as a good idea though. > > > It makes no sense what you say. QUIT is defined. What you describe is inside definition. > > Just define QUIT as being a word that restarts the REPL and restores the Forth system to a rational state, and stores the state prior to the quit in a struct (also defined). > > Also, define QUIT as being deferred and define <QUIT> as doing what QUIT does and being the default action of the QUIT vector. The user can then define his own version of QUIT that calls <QUIT> but also does what he wants. The user can define a new struct that is a child class of the struct that <QUIT> uses --- his version of QUIT will use this child struct so it can save his important global variables in addition to the global variables that <QUIT> saves. > > All of this seems easy and obvious to me. You say that it doesn't make any sense? Really??? Well, the "Starting Forth" book did describe vectored execution as being a "hairy subject" --- maybe you don't understand how it works --- I doubt that anybody on the ANS-Forth committee understood how it worked. > > > ANS is a kind of crap and we all know it. It's something with the label "standard". And you want one too. So write a better one. I do not think you could do that, as writing such a document requires some social skills... > > I have repeatedly said that I want Straight Forth to be a collaborative effort of the Forth community. That is the point of talking about it here. I am willing to listen to anybody if they actually are a Forth programmer (in the sense that they write Forth programs; not just a salesperson for a corporation) and they are respectful (they don't show up braying about how they are the "leading expert" and everybody must accede to their mighty wisdom in all matters). > > The Forth-200x committee demand "social skills" that I consider to be brown-nosing --- they demand that all Forthers accept them as the leading experts on Forth who have the right to make the final decision on what is Forth --- they demand that every Forther approach them on his knees with suggestions, which they can then dismiss as being stupid (typically without bothering to read the suggestions at all). > > Who exactly elected the Forth-200x committee to be the leaders of the Forth community? No Forth programmer did! The Forth-200x committee were appointed to their exulted position by Elizabeth Rather --- most (maybe all) have financial ties to Forth Inc. --- doing what Forth Inc. tells them to do is just part of their job; this is where their paycheck comes from. > > You are not getting a paycheck from Forth Inc. though --- so why are you brown-nosing the Forth-200x committee? --- why are you supporting ANS-Forth, which is total crap from a technical standpoint, and which was never anything except a marketing gimmick from Forth Inc.? > > I suppose that brown-nosing is just an inherent aspect of many people's psychological profile --- they credit themselves with having "social skills; " what this means is that they do a lot of brown-nosing and they vaguely wish that somebody would brown-nose them --- Elizabeth Rather's whole career has depended upon finding people like this to be her supporters... It's easier to have Forth system that follows a kind of standard. You can have FIG or F83 or comFORTH or... you name it. DPANS94 is the most recent version - and the first without implementation. I'd claim there is no 100% DPANS94 compliant Forth ;) Except HelFORTH ;) So, beside compliance, Forth systems are developed to do some task. Not for just having a new nice language. What I say is that you can do everything you want if you need it to do something. The standard is something very practical. You can exchange code with people that write in terms of the standard. So if you do not like, write code as you write. Find people to exchange code - that is possible: HelFORTH for example came from RetroForth developments... You know, Reva, FreeForth etc. developed also from this root. It's nothing about ANS. HelFORTH moved a bit to ANS direction. And no, I did not get any money from Forth Inc.. Regards, -Helmar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 10:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d66aba43-141e-43ef-ae5b-2ddeeb473c66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56122 |
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 10:19:24 AM UTC-7, Helmar Wodtke wrote: > It's easier to have Forth system that follows a kind of standard. That is true --- the Forth community needs to define a standard --- the most important aspect of a workable standard is that it not be ambiguous, so that programs will be portable between compliant compilers. Start any time! > I'd claim there is no 100% DPANS94 compliant Forth ;) Except HelFORTH ;) Because of the multiple ambiguities in ANS-Forth, there is a lot of elbow-room --- many Forth systems can be 100% compliant with ANS-Forth --- they aren't compatible with each other though. > So, beside compliance, Forth systems are developed to do some task. Not for just having a new nice language. What I say is that you can do everything you want if you need it to do something. The standard is something very practical. That isn't true. ANS-Forth was purposely crippled. The idea was that students could learn Forth (learn about DUP and SWAP etc.) using ANS-Forth (typically gForth) --- but they wouldn't be able to write commercial programs --- with this education, they would become "portable programmers" in the sense that they could then get jobs writing SwiftForth or VFX code (but their programs would no longer be ANS-Forth). ANS-Forth is just a toy language --- it has no use other than education --- it was purposely crippled to prevent it from being used for writing commercial programs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 18:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oaufnt$jru$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56124 |
On 3/22/2017 17:59, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > Because of the multiple ambiguities in ANS-Forth, there is a lot of > elbow-room --- many Forth systems can be 100% compliant with > ANS-Forth --- they aren't compatible with each other though. That's irrelevant, since system to system compatibility isn't covered by the standard, and no standard I know of makes guarantees (or requests them) about the compatibility of different implementations. If a program is written to meet the ANS standard, then a system that is ANS standard compliant will be able to run it. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 13:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1b2b69f-6428-423b-99e6-5f226d1c8ac6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56127 |
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 11:31:09 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote: > On 3/22/2017 17:59, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > Because of the multiple ambiguities in ANS-Forth, there is a lot of > > elbow-room --- many Forth systems can be 100% compliant with > > ANS-Forth --- they aren't compatible with each other though. > > That's irrelevant, since system to system compatibility isn't covered by > the standard, and no standard I know of makes guarantees (or requests > them) about the compatibility of different implementations. The purpose of a standard is to guarantee compatibility of different implementations --- this is so programs can be ported unchanged between different implementations, so long as those implementations are compliant with the system --- portability of programs is not irrelevant, but it is the crux of what a standard does. > If a program is written to meet the ANS standard, then a system that is > ANS standard compliant will be able to run it. If a program is written to meet the ANS standard, then only one system that is ANS standard compliant will be able to run it. For example, VFX, SwiftForth and gForth all have a version of FIND that is compliant with an interpretation of the ANS-Forth document, but none of them are compatible with each other --- for a long time I considered this to be a fatal flaw of ANS-Forth --- then I figured out the disambiguifiers which work around this flaw (weirdly enough though, all of the ANS-Forth enthusiasts hate the disambiguifiers, which either means that they love ambiguity, or that they are in denial regarding the ambiguity).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 05:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a8667ff-9947-42bd-a9e0-6ed24d7aa522@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56127 |
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 18:31:09 UTC, Alex wrote: > On 3/22/2017 17:59, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > Because of the multiple ambiguities in ANS-Forth, there is a lot of > > elbow-room --- many Forth systems can be 100% compliant with > > ANS-Forth --- they aren't compatible with each other though. > > That's irrelevant, since system to system compatibility isn't covered by > the standard, The standard's claimed goal is portability. We can argue over semantics but I'd say if you expect portability then it's not unreasonable to expect compatibility. > and no standard I know of makes guarantees (or requests > them) about the compatibility of different implementations. > > If a program is written to meet the ANS standard, then a system that is > ANS standard compliant will be able to run it. Yeah, but if you run that same source code on two different (compliant) systems and get different results, which one is wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 08:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cZKdnSDKXdSTVU7FnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #56173 |
Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 18:31:09 UTC, Alex wrote: >> >> If a program is written to meet the ANS standard, then a system that is >> ANS standard compliant will be able to run it. > > Yeah, but if you run that same source code on two different (compliant) > systems and get different results, which one is wrong? Neither, by definition. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 13:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ob0jfh$u6f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56174 |
On 3/23/2017 13:05, Andrew Haley wrote: > Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 18:31:09 UTC, Alex wrote: >>> >>> If a program is written to meet the ANS standard, then a system that is >>> ANS standard compliant will be able to run it. >> >> Yeah, but if you run that same source code on two different (compliant) >> systems and get different results, which one is wrong? > > Neither, by definition. An example. : FOO 1+ ; is a ANS standard program, but you may get different results on different systems when you type 65535 FOO . The value returned when either overflow or underflow occurs is implementation defined. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 15:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <198cfynulyuy9.l6oy9rz4myh.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #56176 |
Op Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:47:13 +0000 schreef Alex: > On 3/23/2017 13:05, Andrew Haley wrote: >> Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 18:31:09 UTC, Alex wrote: >>>> >>>> If a program is written to meet the ANS standard, then a system that is >>>> ANS standard compliant will be able to run it. >>> >>> Yeah, but if you run that same source code on two different (compliant) >>> systems and get different results, which one is wrong? >> >> Neither, by definition. > > An example. > >: FOO 1+ ; > > is a ANS standard program, but you may get different results on > different systems when you type 65535 FOO . > > The value returned when either overflow or underflow occurs is > implementation defined. As this is implementation defined, 16 bit programs give zero, all the others 65536. No problem here. The user/programmer has to know the number of bits in a cell, the implementation mentioned above. groet Coos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 10:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <WOadnbp3_5ROdU7FnZ2dnUU7-QudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #56176 |
Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On 3/23/2017 13:05, Andrew Haley wrote: >> Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 18:31:09 UTC, Alex wrote: >>>> >>>> If a program is written to meet the ANS standard, then a system that is >>>> ANS standard compliant will be able to run it. >>> >>> Yeah, but if you run that same source code on two different (compliant) >>> systems and get different results, which one is wrong? >> >> Neither, by definition. > > An example. > > : FOO 1+ ; > > is a ANS standard program, but you may get different results on > different systems when you type 65535 FOO . Yes. Consider HERE . It's likely that no two systems would return the same result when exectuing that program. Why would anybody care? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-24 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Mar24.190750@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #56176 |
Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> writes:
>: FOO 1+ ;
>
>is a ANS standard program, but you may get different results on
>different systems when you type 65535 FOO .
>
>The value returned when either overflow or underflow occurs is
>implementation defined.
In Forth-94 and 2012, it is an ambiguous condition (but in practice,
all systems perform modulo arithmetic (aka wraparound)). In the
current draft, modulo arithmetic is guaranteed. I.e., on a 16-bit
system 65535 1+ gives 0.
- 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 | john <anon@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 10:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3373b703a034de4a989715@news.virginmedia.com> |
| In reply to | #56176 |
In article <ob0jfh$u6f$1@dont-email.me>, alex@rivadpm.com says... > An example. > > : FOO 1+ ; > > is a ANS standard program, but you may get different results on > different systems when you type 65535 FOO . > > The value returned when either overflow or underflow occurs is > implementation defined. > Which is a very good point (at last) Alex. Unlike the vast majority of "suggestions" in this group , this is something a standards comittee should be correcting. (in this case as a matter of urgency if such issue exists) If you get a differing result from the same code you don't have a standard system at all - regardless of implementation or hardware. The only thing totally unaceptable from a standard is a different output from the same input. The rest (as mr. siska says) is gossip. -- john ========================= http://johntech.co.uk "Bleeding Edge Forum" http://johntech.co.uk/forum/ =========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 03:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb729727-2546-4008-9a9d-4733a9e89f94@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58567 |
On Wednesday, 3 May 2017 10:45:45 UTC+1, john wrote: > The only thing totally unaceptable from a standard is a different output from the > same input. Tell that to the GCC crowd. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 05:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <z_6dndm836Q7KpTEnZ2dnUU7-TednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #58567 |
john <anon@example.com> wrote: > > If you get a differing result from the same code you don't have > a standard system at all - regardless of implementation or hardware. > > The only thing totally unaceptable from a standard is a different > output from the same input. I think you don't really get this standardization thing. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <anon@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 12:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3373ca8bc5bb664f989718@news.virginmedia.com> |
| In reply to | #58573 |
In article <z_6dndm836Q7KpTEnZ2dnUU7-TednZ2d@supernews.com>, andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid says... > john <anon@example.com> wrote: > > > > If you get a differing result from the same code you don't have > > a standard system at all - regardless of implementation or hardware. > > > > The only thing totally unaceptable from a standard is a different > > output from the same input. > > I think you don't really get this standardization thing. > > Andrew. > > > I think you would like to think that. -- john ========================= http://johntech.co.uk "Bleeding Edge Forum" http://johntech.co.uk/forum/ =========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 12:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oecejt$ki3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58574 |
On 5/3/2017 12:08, john wrote: > In article <z_6dndm836Q7KpTEnZ2dnUU7-TednZ2d@supernews.com>, > andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid says... >> john <anon@example.com> wrote: >>> >>> If you get a differing result from the same code you don't have >>> a standard system at all - regardless of implementation or hardware. >>> >>> The only thing totally unaceptable from a standard is a different >>> output from the same input. >> >> I think you don't really get this standardization thing. >> >> Andrew. >> >> >> > > I think you would like to think that. > I think you think you would like Andrew to think that. Let's take adding two numbers and overflow. How would you suggest the standard addresses this requirement you have for the same output from the same input? Here's a reminder of the problem you face; standards don't do addition, processors do. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <anon@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 16:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3374016f962cd1a4989719@news.virginmedia.com> |
| In reply to | #58576 |
In article <oecejt$ki3$1@dont-email.me>, alex@rivadpm.com says... > Let's take adding two numbers and overflow. How would you suggest the > standard addresses this requirement you have for the same output from > the same input? Here's a reminder of the problem you face; standards > don't do addition, processors do. > > I don't see your issue. Let me see an example. -- john ========================= http://johntech.co.uk "Bleeding Edge Forum" http://johntech.co.uk/forum/ =========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 16:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oecrjk$luf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58587 |
On 5/3/2017 16:02, john wrote: > In article <oecejt$ki3$1@dont-email.me>, alex@rivadpm.com says... >> Let's take adding two numbers and overflow. How would you suggest the >> standard addresses this requirement you have for the same output from >> the same input? Here's a reminder of the problem you face; standards >> don't do addition, processors do. >> >> > > I don't see your issue. > Let me see an example. > > You responded to it when I posted it before. : foo 1+ ; What should be the output from 65535 foo . -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <anon@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 16:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3374093a472ed26098971b@news.virginmedia.com> |
| In reply to | #58589 |
In article <oecrjk$luf$1@dont-email.me>, alex@rivadpm.com says... > > On 5/3/2017 16:02, john wrote: > > In article <oecejt$ki3$1@dont-email.me>, alex@rivadpm.com says... > >> Let's take adding two numbers and overflow. How would you suggest the > >> standard addresses this requirement you have for the same output from > >> the same input? Here's a reminder of the problem you face; standards > >> don't do addition, processors do. > >> > >> > > > > I don't see your issue. > > Let me see an example. > > > > > > You responded to it when I posted it before. > > : foo 1+ ; > > What should be the output from > > 65535 foo . Is "foo" a standard word? -- john ========================= http://johntech.co.uk "Bleeding Edge Forum" http://johntech.co.uk/forum/ =========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 18:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oed3ps$jg6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58590 |
On 5/3/2017 16:35, john wrote: > In article <oecrjk$luf$1@dont-email.me>, alex@rivadpm.com says... >> >> On 5/3/2017 16:02, john wrote: >>> In article <oecejt$ki3$1@dont-email.me>, alex@rivadpm.com says... >>>> Let's take adding two numbers and overflow. How would you suggest the >>>> standard addresses this requirement you have for the same output from >>>> the same input? Here's a reminder of the problem you face; standards >>>> don't do addition, processors do. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I don't see your issue. >>> Let me see an example. >>> >>> >> >> You responded to it when I posted it before. >> >> : foo 1+ ; >> >> What should be the output from >> >> 65535 foo . > > Is "foo" a standard word? > No. 1+ is. It adds 1 to the top of the stack. If the definition is confusing, try this instead. What should the result be? 65535 1+ . -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <anon@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 10:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3375015445102be298971c@news.virginmedia.com> |
| In reply to | #58600 |
In article <oed3ps$jg6$1@dont-email.me>, alex@rivadpm.com says... > > On 5/3/2017 16:35, john wrote: > > In article <oecrjk$luf$1@dont-email.me>, alex@rivadpm.com says... > >> > >> On 5/3/2017 16:02, john wrote: > >>> In article <oecejt$ki3$1@dont-email.me>, alex@rivadpm.com says... > >>>> Let's take adding two numbers and overflow. How would you suggest the > >>>> standard addresses this requirement you have for the same output from > >>>> the same input? Here's a reminder of the problem you face; standards > >>>> don't do addition, processors do. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> I don't see your issue. > >>> Let me see an example. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> You responded to it when I posted it before. > >> > >> : foo 1+ ; > >> > >> What should be the output from > >> > >> 65535 foo . > > > > Is "foo" a standard word? > > > > No. 1+ is. It adds 1 to the top of the stack. If the definition is > confusing, try this instead. What should the result be? > > 65535 1+ . Ok now we are talking about something more specific. So which standard are you using and what does it say in words and stack picture about "1+" ? -- john ========================= http://johntech.co.uk "Bleeding Edge Forum" http://johntech.co.uk/forum/ =========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web