Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #59190 > unrolled thread

Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-05-13 18:00 -0400
    Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 15:19 -0700
    Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-05-13 13:21 -1000
    Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-14 11:23 +1000
    Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 00:34 -0700
      Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-15 10:12 +1000
      Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 23:43 -0400
        Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-15 13:47 +1000
          Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-05-15 09:51 +0000
        Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-14 21:42 -0700
          Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 22:17 -0700
            Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-05-15 17:57 -0400
              Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 15:49 -0700
              Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 02:16 -0400
                Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 19:54 -0700
                  Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-17 08:11 +0200
                    Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-17 11:09 +0000
              Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-16 03:53 -0500
          Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 01:21 -0400
            Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-15 00:30 -0500
              Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 22:40 -0700
                Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 02:06 -0700
              Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 22:45 -0700
            Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-15 09:05 +0200
              Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 02:11 -0700
            Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-05-15 09:52 +0000
          Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-15 05:48 +0000
            Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-15 05:14 -0500
            Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-15 11:40 +0000
          Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 02:03 -0700
          Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-05-15 21:24 +0200
          Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-16 09:57 +1000
            Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-16 08:09 +0200
              Re: Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-17 00:54 +1000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#59190 — Is it -2ROT or 2-ROT ?

If I have ROT and negate it with '-' to get the opposite, I get -ROT.
If I have ROT and double it for the '2---' words, I get 2ROT.  But,
which has priority?  If I apply the negation '-' to 2ROT to get the
opposite, I get -2ROT.  If on the other hand, I apply the '2' for
'2---' words to -ROT to double it, I get 2-ROT.  Both of these are
functionally the same but now have different names.  Which of either
-2ROT or 2-ROT is the more common naming? Which is the more elegant
naming? Which makes more sense?

DUP DROP SWAP OVER ROT -ROT
2DUP 2DROP 2SWAP 2OVER 2ROT -2ROT
2DUP 2DROP 2SWAP 2OVER 2ROT 2-ROT


Rod Pemberton
-- 
All it takes for humanity to conquer the world's toughest problems
is to hope, to believe, to share, and to do, in cooperation.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#59192

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 4:59:52 PM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> Which of either
> -2ROT or 2-ROT is the more common naming? Which is the more elegant
> naming? Which makes more sense?

2-ROT looks like a-name-with-dashes rather than inversion of 2ROT, so
I prefer -2ROT

Another option: don't implement this second-class word. Write 2ROT
2ROT instead when you want -2ROT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59195

On 5/13/17 12:00 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>
> If I have ROT and negate it with '-' to get the opposite, I get -ROT.
> If I have ROT and double it for the '2---' words, I get 2ROT.  But,
> which has priority?  If I apply the negation '-' to 2ROT to get the
> opposite, I get -2ROT.  If on the other hand, I apply the '2' for
> '2---' words to -ROT to double it, I get 2-ROT.  Both of these are
> functionally the same but now have different names.  Which of either
> -2ROT or 2-ROT is the more common naming? Which is the more elegant
> naming? Which makes more sense?
>
> DUP DROP SWAP OVER ROT -ROT
> 2DUP 2DROP 2SWAP 2OVER 2ROT -2ROT
> 2DUP 2DROP 2SWAP 2OVER 2ROT 2-ROT

Thank God neither I nor any of the engineers I've worked with have been 
tempted to write -2ROT, but that's the name I'd prefer. The reason is 
that 2ROT is the essential function, and the fact that it's going in the 
other direction is secondary.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
Elizabeth D. Rather
FORTH, Inc.
6080 Center Drive, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA  90045
USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59196

Rod Pemberton wrote:
> If I have ROT and negate it with '-' to get the opposite, I get -ROT.
> If I have ROT and double it for the '2---' words, I get 2ROT.  But,
> which has priority?  If I apply the negation '-' to 2ROT to get the
> opposite, I get -2ROT.  If on the other hand, I apply the '2' for
> '2---' words to -ROT to double it, I get 2-ROT.  Both of these are
> functionally the same but now have different names.  Which of either
> -2ROT or 2-ROT is the more common naming? Which is the more elegant
> naming? Which makes more sense?
>
> DUP DROP SWAP OVER ROT -ROT
> 2DUP 2DROP 2SWAP 2OVER 2ROT -2ROT
> 2DUP 2DROP 2SWAP 2OVER 2ROT 2-ROT
>
>
> Rod Pemberton

I use 2VARIABLE

> -
> All it takes for humanity to conquer the world's toughest problems
> is to hope, to believe, to share, and to do, in cooperation.

At root of the 'world's toughest problems' is fear which is instinctual
and gives rise to competiveness.  Good luck conquering that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59212

Would have been better to have called them <ROT and ROT> back in the day. Too late now. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59234

Mark Wills wrote:
> Would have been better to have called them <ROT and ROT> back in the day. Too late now.

That assumes they are used in pairs and have approximately equal use.  A check of
SwiftForth shows 217 instances of ROT vs. 88 for -ROT.  Using <ROT and ROT>
would result in more characters to type - for what gain?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59239

On 5/14/2017 3:34 AM, Mark Wills wrote:
> Would have been better to have called them <ROT and ROT> back in the day. Too late now.

Is it?  As long as <ROT and ROT> aren't presently used for anything, 
which I suspect is the case, they can be added and the ROT and -ROT can 
be deprecated without a problem.  The question is how many would find 
this to be useful or important?

I truly can't believe anyone would give a hoot about one extra character 
to type.  It's more an issue of why bother thinking about it?

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59241

rickman wrote:
> On 5/14/2017 3:34 AM, Mark Wills wrote:
> > Would have been better to have called them <ROT and ROT> back in the day. Too late
> > now.
>
> Is it?  As long as <ROT and ROT> aren't presently used for anything,
> which I suspect is the case, they can be added and the ROT and -ROT can
> be deprecated without a problem.  The question is how many would find
> this to be useful or important?
>
> I truly can't believe anyone would give a hoot about one extra character
> to type.  It's more an issue of why bother thinking about it?

I object to doing something for which there's no justification.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59282

HAA wrote:

> rickman wrote:
> > On 5/14/2017 3:34 AM, Mark Wills wrote:
> > > Would have been better to have called them <ROT and ROT> back in
> > > the day. Too late now.
> > 
> > Is it?  As long as <ROT and ROT> aren't presently used for anything,
> > which I suspect is the case, they can be added and the ROT and -ROT
> > can be deprecated without a problem.  The question is how many
> > would find this to be useful or important?
> > 
> > I truly can't believe anyone would give a hoot about one extra
> > character to type.  It's more an issue of why bother thinking about
> > it?
> 
> I object to doing something for which there's no justification.

The justification would be that it is easier to grasp what is going on.
Names do matter.

-- 
Rudy Velthuis        http://www.rvelthuis.de

"In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks 
 you take." -- Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59245

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> As long as <ROT and ROT> aren't presently used for anything,...
> I truly can't believe anyone would give a hoot about one extra
> character to type.  It's more an issue of why bother thinking about
> it?

It's not the extra character, it's that I can never remember which
direction is ROT and which is -ROT, and I suspect it's the same for
(some) other users too.  But it's not worth making a change this late in
the game.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59250

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 11:42:57 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> > As long as <ROT and ROT> aren't presently used for anything,...
> > I truly can't believe anyone would give a hoot about one extra
> > character to type.  It's more an issue of why bother thinking about
> > it?
> 
> It's not the extra character, it's that I can never remember which
> direction is ROT and which is -ROT, and I suspect it's the same for
> (some) other users too.  But it's not worth making a change this late in
> the game.

Well, it's brave of you to make this argument from personal
deficiency, so I'll share my secret method for instantly learning
these words and then never forgetting them, back when UserRPL called
them ROT and UNROT. The secret is: pronounce them "rot", as in "to
decay". Don't use a visual metaphor for their operation. Don't care
what 'direction' they're in. Say "I want to get at the third thing on
the stack -- ROT" and "I want to toss this thing back behind the next
two things on the stack -- UNROT". Come here / go away. Like SWAP
(come here, second on stack) and SWAP (get thee behind what was second
on the stack), but needing more than one word because you're working
more deeply in the stack.

HP calculators displayed the stack vertically, with the TOS at the
bottom of the display. kforth is the only Forth that comes to mind
that has vertical .S output, and it's reversed. I once used a Forth
that had the TOS at the leftmost output of .S -- imagine that, with
this helpfully named word:

  1 2 3 .S  3 2 1 ok
  ROT> .S  2 1 3 ok

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59333

On Sun, 14 May 2017 22:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> wrote:

> [...] so I'll share my secret method for instantly learning
> these words and then never forgetting them, back when UserRPL called
> them ROT and UNROT. The secret is: pronounce them "rot", as in "to
> decay". 

Isn't it "rot" as in "rotate" or "rote"? (long "Oh" vowel) I don't see
how "rot" (short "Ah" vowel) as in decay helps.

RP
-- 
"Well, many people are really f---ing stupid too.  Should we just adopt
all their standards?" - George Carlin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59337

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:55:54 PM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2017 22:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
> Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > [...] so I'll share my secret method for instantly learning
> > these words and then never forgetting them, back when UserRPL called
> > them ROT and UNROT. The secret is: pronounce them "rot", as in "to
> > decay". 
> 
> Isn't it "rot" as in "rotate" or "rote"? (long "Oh" vowel)

Yes.

> I don't see
> how "rot" (short "Ah" vowel) as in decay helps.

If you learn a martial art you'll learn a lot of nonsense like this.
The nonsense and what you actually want come to you in the same
package. Some of it's clearly nonsense from the outset and most of
that remains nonsense, but if you've ever seen the Karate Kid you
should at least expect that there are also critically useful practices
hidden among what you would initally want to avoid as a waste of your
time.

Part of the problem is that you're learning from martial artists.
If--well, if you want to continue to pronounce ROT as "rote", there
are lots of other posts in this thread that you can learn from. Those
are the posts by people who can't even reliably remember what ROT
does.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59347

On 5/15/2017 5:57 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2017 22:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
> Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [...] so I'll share my secret method for instantly learning
>> these words and then never forgetting them, back when UserRPL called
>> them ROT and UNROT. The secret is: pronounce them "rot", as in "to
>> decay".
>
> Isn't it "rot" as in "rotate" or "rote"? (long "Oh" vowel) I don't see
> how "rot" (short "Ah" vowel) as in decay helps.

: DECAY  ROT ROT ROT ;

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59412

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 3:16:19 PM UTC+9, rickman wrote:
> On 5/15/2017 5:57 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 May 2017 22:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
> > Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@somewhere> wrote:
> >
> >> [...] so I'll share my secret method for instantly learning
> >> these words and then never forgetting them, back when UserRPL called
> >> them ROT and UNROT. The secret is: pronounce them "rot", as in "to
> >> decay".
> >
> > Isn't it "rot" as in "rotate" or "rote"? (long "Oh" vowel) I don't see
> > how "rot" (short "Ah" vowel) as in decay helps.
> 
> : DECAY  ROT ROT ROT ;
> 
> -- 
> 
> Rick C

: ENTROPY ROT ROT ROT ;

;-/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59419

Joel Rees wrote:
> : ENTROPY ROT ROT ROT ;
>
> ;-/

Wasting resources and in the end nothing useful was accomplished?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59424

On Wed, 17 May 2017 08:11:29 +0200, Lars Brinkhoff
<lars.spam@nocrew.org> wrote:

>Joel Rees wrote:
>> : ENTROPY ROT ROT ROT ;
>>
>> ;-/
>
>Wasting resources and in the end nothing useful was accomplished?

On VFX:

: ENTROPY ROT ROT ROT ;  ok
dis entropy 
ENTROPY 
( 004CE0E0    C3 )                    NEXT,
( 1 bytes, 1 instructions )
 ok

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]

#59354

Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2017 22:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
> Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> [...] so I'll share my secret method for instantly learning
>> these words and then never forgetting them, back when UserRPL called
>> them ROT and UNROT. The secret is: pronounce them "rot", as in "to
>> decay". 
> 
> Isn't it "rot" as in "rotate" or "rote"? (long "Oh" vowel) I don't see
> how "rot" (short "Ah" vowel) as in decay helps.

It depends where you are from.  See Commonwealth Hackish: n.,
http://catb.org/jargon/html/C/Commonwealth-Hackish.html

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59252

On 5/15/2017 12:42 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>> As long as <ROT and ROT> aren't presently used for anything,...
>> I truly can't believe anyone would give a hoot about one extra
>> character to type.  It's more an issue of why bother thinking about
>> it?
>
> It's not the extra character, it's that I can never remember which
> direction is ROT and which is -ROT, and I suspect it's the same for
> (some) other users too.  But it's not worth making a change this late in
> the game.

Really?  Top of stack is normally on the right.  ROT moves the TOS to 
the left, so it is <ROT.  Is that not pretty clear and consistent with 
other notations such as the stack comment on word definitions?

"late in the game"?  Changes have been made pretty continuously from 
what I've seen, but then I guess I'm not really that familiar with the 
detailed time line.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59253

On 5/15/2017 12:21 AM, rickman wrote:
> On 5/15/2017 12:42 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>>> As long as <ROT and ROT> aren't presently used for anything,...
>>> I truly can't believe anyone would give a hoot about one extra
>>> character to type.  It's more an issue of why bother thinking about
>>> it?
>>
>> It's not the extra character, it's that I can never remember which
>> direction is ROT and which is -ROT, and I suspect it's the same for
>> (some) other users too.  But it's not worth making a change this late in
>> the game.
> 
> Really?  Top of stack is normally on the right.  ROT moves the TOS to 
> the left, so it is <ROT.  Is that not pretty clear and consistent with 
> other notations such as the stack comment on word definitions?
> 
> "late in the game"?  Changes have been made pretty continuously from 
> what I've seen, but then I guess I'm not really that familiar with the 
> detailed time line.
> 

This is Forth you can have it both ways and use the form that make you 
happy.

I have not needed it but many Forth from the old days used to be able to 
equate two words, not a second word that calls the first. Is that still 
available, I can't remember how it was done.

-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web