Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #27495 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-12-28 23:39 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-01-03 14:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 330 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-28 23:39 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-28 21:52 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-12-29 11:28 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-12-29 23:12 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-29 07:45 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-12-29 18:33 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-29 16:57 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-12-30 00:25 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-01 13:29 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-01 14:18 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-01-01 15:46 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-01-01 15:26 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-03 13:22 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 11:54 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-06 10:57 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 14:07 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-06 12:42 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 14:22 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-03 09:06 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 11:10 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-04 11:49 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-05 13:14 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-04 16:35 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-05 11:35 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-05 06:15 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-05 15:11 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-05 10:07 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-05 21:14 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-06 04:44 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-06 12:42 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-06 21:51 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-06 22:41 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-07 03:29 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2014-01-07 11:48 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-07 12:58 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-07 15:13 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-07 10:22 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-08 02:20 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-07 14:13 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-09 23:19 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-10 17:19 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-10 09:02 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-13 13:28 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-14 09:05 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-14 04:05 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-14 12:36 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-15 11:37 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-13 17:07 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-11 01:40 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-13 11:21 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-13 01:50 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-13 12:05 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-13 03:19 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-13 03:36 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-12 19:22 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-11 17:09 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-02 17:06 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-02 08:13 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-02 18:59 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 12:54 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 07:19 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-29 22:32 -0500
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 16:46 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-30 18:37 -0500
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-12-31 11:53 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 17:21 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 12:03 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 18:09 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 12:43 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 16:52 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-02 08:32 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-05 13:26 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-04 16:55 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-07 12:45 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-06 22:15 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-15 08:39 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-05 12:53 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-02 13:45 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-02 20:17 -0500
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 04:03 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 13:43 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 11:53 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-01 23:57 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-01 13:19 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 19:48 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-02 19:13 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-02 15:44 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 23:56 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-02 15:43 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-02 15:34 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 04:14 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 17:49 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 12:03 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-03 10:31 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-03 19:19 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-03 09:56 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-04 04:18 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-04 12:39 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 21:43 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-03 13:45 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 23:10 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-03 15:41 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 22:05 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-04 04:21 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? oh2aun@gmail.com - 2014-01-10 06:46 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-07 13:33 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-07 08:44 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 14:52 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-08 08:41 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 08:14 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-07 18:41 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 15:09 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-08 20:00 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-08 12:45 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 00:16 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 22:34 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 22:41 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-10 23:12 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 23:04 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-10 22:08 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-09 02:16 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 04:18 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 11:19 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 09:04 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-10 17:27 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-10 11:37 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? oh2aun@gmail.com - 2014-01-10 12:47 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-10 13:37 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? oh2aun@gmail.com - 2014-01-10 14:24 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-13 16:53 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 14:50 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 09:08 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 18:33 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 12:32 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-09 20:49 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 09:10 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 14:37 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-07 08:48 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 15:24 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-08 08:50 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 08:28 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-08 16:21 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 09:39 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 04:28 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 11:27 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 14:42 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 09:41 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 18:44 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 12:35 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-10 00:20 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-10 05:22 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-01-10 03:48 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-10 09:31 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 09:40 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 21:54 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-11 03:41 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-11 13:33 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-11 11:44 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-11 10:40 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-11 04:11 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-11 13:31 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-11 07:52 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-11 19:35 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-12 02:57 -0600
chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-12 03:12 -0600
Re: chipFORTH Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-12 08:43 -0800
Re: chipFORTH Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-12 10:40 -0600
Re: chipFORTH albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-12 18:00 +0000
Re: chipFORTH Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-12 11:18 -0800
Re: chipFORTH anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-13 16:03 +0000
Re: chipFORTH "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-13 17:21 +0000
Re: chipFORTH stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-13 19:10 +0000
Re: chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-13 02:28 -0500
Re: chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?] Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-12 21:39 -1000
Re: chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-13 03:16 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-12 11:38 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-12 07:46 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-13 15:46 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-13 10:45 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-13 19:05 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-13 20:53 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-14 03:41 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-14 13:07 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-14 17:53 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-14 17:35 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-14 08:23 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-14 13:19 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? oh2aun@gmail.com - 2014-01-14 12:31 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-14 21:37 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-14 16:12 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-14 12:18 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-15 04:19 +0100
DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-15 17:52 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-15 21:56 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-16 09:30 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> - 2014-01-17 12:44 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash oh2aun@gmail.com - 2014-01-17 08:05 -0800
Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-17 16:43 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-17 20:37 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-18 04:40 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-18 11:56 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-18 10:54 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-18 17:36 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-18 12:17 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-18 18:23 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-18 14:00 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-18 20:24 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-18 14:05 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-18 23:12 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-19 03:38 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-19 14:03 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-19 09:17 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-19 15:31 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-19 19:48 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-18 18:11 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-19 01:12 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-19 21:53 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> - 2014-01-20 11:32 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-16 02:02 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-01-16 07:19 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-16 00:22 -0800
Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-16 15:38 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-01-20 09:45 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-16 09:33 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-16 16:09 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-17 03:28 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-17 11:39 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-17 08:16 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-17 16:06 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-18 17:21 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-19 12:32 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-19 09:19 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-19 18:20 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-20 01:25 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-14 08:31 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-14 01:33 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-14 10:05 +0000
CREATE...DOES> on program-in-flash systems anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-14 11:58 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-11 08:43 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-11 19:37 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-11 11:28 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-11 12:24 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-03 18:19 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 22:03 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 13:28 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 15:09 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-02 03:41 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 18:09 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 04:16 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 22:58 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-29 22:34 -0500
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-29 19:30 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-29 22:49 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2013-12-30 08:48 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 16:24 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 11:18 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 17:32 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 12:05 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 11:02 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-02 05:48 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 11:00 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-12-31 21:42 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2013-12-30 09:14 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 03:35 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 16:06 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 10:41 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 17:50 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 12:21 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 11:21 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-02 07:08 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 11:13 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 07:36 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 15:23 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-03 16:02 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-03 08:54 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-03 19:59 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-03 10:12 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <st@trstn.net> - 2014-01-03 20:17 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-03 20:29 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-03 11:48 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-04 12:00 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-04 13:12 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-04 08:22 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 21:37 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 16:58 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-02 16:41 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-02 16:54 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 23:22 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 23:20 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 11:56 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-30 08:14 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 12:54 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-12-31 23:15 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-31 07:05 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-31 09:26 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-01 13:27 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-31 18:21 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-01 12:12 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-03 15:59 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-03 00:19 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-05 13:25 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-04 19:03 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-06 14:08 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-01-06 01:47 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-07 12:43 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 13:29 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-08 16:30 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-11 23:12 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 14:30 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-01-04 13:57 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-04 12:17 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-04 15:08 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-05 04:57 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-05 09:14 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-05 12:20 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 13:05 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-08 08:55 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 08:49 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-19 11:24 -0500
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-01-04 16:06 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-07 13:47 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2013-12-30 18:29 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 09:34 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-02 20:06 -0500
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 11:34 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-03 08:04 -0500
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 07:38 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 15:57 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 14:17 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-03 14:52 +0000
Page 3 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 17 Next page →
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-10 17:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jan10.181937@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27761 |
"Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
>> >Anton Ertl wrote:
>> > ...
>> >> Please enlighten me about the empirical basis of "zero-based" PICK and
>> >> ROLL.
>> >
>> >When the index is computed, zero-based is optimum.
>>
>> What index? What do you compare with what? Which metric are you
>> using?
>
>Observation and experience.
Ok, so you do not explain what you mean with "index" or "optimum", and
you do not want to give any information on how to reproduce your
results. Do you want anyone to take you seriously?
>> I think the choices made in Forth-94 in the division area is also
>> good: The don't-care case is probably the most frequent (cases were
>> both operands are only ever positive), and we have a way to get at the
>> Forth-79 and Forth-83 behaviour if we ever really care about it.
>
>Time has done what '94 couldn't and today virtually all Forth systems use
>symmetric division. Case closed.
A friend of mine said that "virtually" is a synonym for "not". Gforth
implements floored division for / MOD etc.
- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-10 09:02 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <idKdne5a1_RS3k3PnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27780 |
On 1/10/14 7:19 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
>> Anton Ertl wrote:
>>> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
>>>> Anton Ertl wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Please enlighten me about the empirical basis of "zero-based" PICK and
>>>>> ROLL.
>>>>
>>>> When the index is computed, zero-based is optimum.
>>>
>>> What index? What do you compare with what? Which metric are you
>>> using?
>>
>> Observation and experience.
>
> Ok, so you do not explain what you mean with "index" or "optimum", and
> you do not want to give any information on how to reproduce your
> results. Do you want anyone to take you seriously?
Ok, consider:
10 CONSTANT SIZE
CREATE DATA SIZE CELLS ALLOT
: SHOW ( -- ) SIZE 0 DO DATA I + @ . LOOP ;
Indexing here is zero-based. If it were 1-based, you'd have to say,
SIZE 1+ 1 DO...
which is awkward. So, that's how we normally think of indexing: 0 is the
index of the start of whatever. Therefore, 0 PICK would be the TOS
(ignoring the argument to PICK) plus 0, or DUP.
I believe that's what Ed meant.
Cheers,
Elizabeth
--
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com
"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-13 13:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lavj4o$3bb$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #27782 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 1/10/14 7:19 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: > > "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes: > >> Anton Ertl wrote: > >>> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes: > >>>> Anton Ertl wrote: > >>>> ... > >>>>> Please enlighten me about the empirical basis of "zero-based" PICK and > >>>>> ROLL. > >>>> > >>>> When the index is computed, zero-based is optimum. > >>> > >>> What index? What do you compare with what? Which metric are you > >>> using? > >> > >> Observation and experience. > > > > Ok, so you do not explain what you mean with "index" or "optimum", and > > you do not want to give any information on how to reproduce your > > results. Do you want anyone to take you seriously? > > Ok, consider: > > 10 CONSTANT SIZE > CREATE DATA SIZE CELLS ALLOT > : SHOW ( -- ) SIZE 0 DO DATA I + @ . LOOP ; > > Indexing here is zero-based. If it were 1-based, you'd have to say, > SIZE 1+ 1 DO... > > which is awkward. So, that's how we normally think of indexing: 0 is the > index of the start of whatever. Therefore, 0 PICK would be the TOS > (ignoring the argument to PICK) plus 0, or DUP. > > I believe that's what Ed meant. 0-based PICK ROLL has been normative since '83. If Anton wishes to challenge the decision, it is *he* who must demonstrate why 1-based is better, or at least performance neutral. He has not done so but instead presses others to do his homework. I believe the case for 1-based PICK ROLL would be difficult to make. How it came to be so originally is a matter for historians. It may have been a consequence of PICK written in high-level. 0-based is optimum when implementing PICK and ROLL e.g. an Intel 386 n/c PICK is just one instruction. 1-based may appear beneficial in calculations involving SP@ however such gain is illusory as it is obtained at the expense of making PICK ROLL longer/slower which affects all uses. FD 4/5 lists K. Scheisliek as author of the 0-based PICK ROLL proposal. If Anton wants more convincing he might consider contacting the author.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-14 09:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jan14.100504@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27847 |
"Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
>0-based PICK ROLL has been normative since '83. If Anton wishes to challenge
>the decision, it is *he* who must demonstrate why 1-based is better, or at least
>performance neutral. He has not done so but instead presses others to do his
>homework.
It was you who claimed (in <laaf88$q7i$1@speranza.aioe.org>):
|Forth is empirically based. It matters whether a majority of cases favour a
|particular solution. It was this that drove the decision to make PICK and
|ROLL zero-based - even at the expense of breaking code.
I asked you to elaborate on that claim. Which you did not do.
>0-based is optimum when implementing PICK and ROLL e.g. an Intel 386 n/c PICK
>is just one instruction.
Let's see:
iForth version 2.1.2541, generated 00:39:42, January 28, 2007.
i6 binary, native floating-point, double precision.
Copyright 1996 - 2007 Marcel Hendrix.
FORTH> see pick
Flags: ANSI
$080A4DA8 : PICK 8BC083ED048F4500 .@.m..E.
$080A4DB0 pop ebx 5B [
$080A4DB1 inc ebx 43 C
$080A4DB2 shl ebx, 2 b# C1E302 Ac.
$080A4DB5 push ebx 53 S
$080A4DB6 call SP@ ( $0809EE38 ) offset NEAR
E87DA0FFFF h
$080A4DBB pop ebx 5B [
$080A4DBC pop eax 58 X
$080A4DBD add ebx, eax 01C3 .C
$080A4DBF mov ebx, [ebx 0 +] dword 8B1B ..
$080A4DC1 push ebx 53 S
$080A4DC2 ; 8B450083C504 .E..E.
$080A4DC8 jmp eax FFE0 `
Apparently Marcel did not optimize the general PICK, fitting for a
word that is not used often. But note how the Forth-83 PICK caused
the "inc ebx" at $080A4DB1, which would not be present if PICK had
stayed with the Forth-79 specification.
Another go:
Gforth 0.7.0, Copyright (C) 1995-2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `license'
Type `bye' to exit
see pick
Code pick
( $804C634 ) mov ebp , dword ptr 4 [edi] [ebp*4] \ $8B $6C $AF $4
...
Here Forth-83 PICK is indeed just one instruction (plus NEXT), but so
is Forth-79 PICK, which would look like this:
mov ebp , dword ptr 0 [edi] [ebp*4]
>1-based may appear beneficial in calculations involving SP@
>however such gain is illusory as it is obtained at the expense of making PICK ROLL
>longer/slower which affects all uses.
As can be seen, Forth-79 PICK is neither longer nor slower than
Forth-83 PICK.
And even if your claim was true, which it isn't, it would not justify
replacing Forth-79 PICK with a differently-named "0-based" word in
Forth-83, and certainly not changing the specification of PICK
incompatibly.
>FD 4/5 lists K. Scheisliek as author of the 0-based PICK ROLL proposal. If Anton
>wants more convincing he might consider contacting the author.
I will ask him when I see him.
- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mhx@iae.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-14 04:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1994bb0b-fbf1-4e49-a674-f0cfd0d560dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27883 |
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:05:04 AM UTC+1, Anton Ertl wrote: > "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes: [..] > Apparently Marcel did not optimize the general PICK, fitting for a > word that is not used often. But note how the Forth-83 PICK caused > the "inc ebx" at $080A4DB1, which would not be present if PICK had > stayed with the Forth-79 specification. I don't want to interfere in this discussion, but FYI, more representative iForth results can be seen when PICK is actually *used*: FORTH> : tt 0 pick ; ' tt idis $01304D40 : tt $01304D4A mov rbx, [rsp] qword $01304D4E push rbx $01304D4F ; FORTH> : tt 1 pick ; ' tt idis Redefining tt $01304DC0 : tt $01304DCA mov rbx, [rsp 8 +] qword $01304DCF push rbx $01304DD0 ; FORTH> : tt 19 pick ; ' tt idis Redefining tt $01304E40 : tt $01304E4A mov rbx, [rsp #152 +] qword $01304E52 push rbx $01304E53 ; Maybe I didn't know how to do this in 2007, because PICK has special problems (unrelated to 0/1 indexing). [..] -marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-14 12:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jan14.133606@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27887 |
mhx@iae.nl writes:
>On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:05:04 AM UTC+1, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
>[..]
>> Apparently Marcel did not optimize the general PICK, fitting for a
>> word that is not used often. But note how the Forth-83 PICK caused
>> the "inc ebx" at $080A4DB1, which would not be present if PICK had
>> stayed with the Forth-79 specification.
>
>I don't want to interfere in this discussion, but FYI,
>more representative iForth results can be seen when
>PICK is actually *used*:
>
>FORTH> : tt 0 pick ; ' tt idis
>$01304D40 : tt
>$01304D4A mov rbx, [rsp] qword
>$01304D4E push rbx
>$01304D4F ;
>FORTH> : tt 1 pick ; ' tt idis
>Redefining tt
>$01304DC0 : tt
>$01304DCA mov rbx, [rsp 8 +] qword
>$01304DCF push rbx
>$01304DD0 ;
>FORTH> : tt 19 pick ; ' tt idis
>Redefining tt
>$01304E40 : tt
>$01304E4A mov rbx, [rsp #152 +] qword
>$01304E52 push rbx
>$01304E53 ;
>
>Maybe I didn't know how to do this in 2007, because PICK
>has special problems (unrelated to 0/1 indexing).
You did know it, but your SEE is too clever, so I did not see this,
but only something very close to source code.
iForth version 2.1.2541, generated 00:39:42, January 28, 2007.
i6 binary, native floating-point, double precision.
Copyright 1996 - 2007 Marcel Hendrix.
FORTH> : tt 0 pick ; ' tt idis
$08166280 : [trashed] 8BC083ED048F4500 .@.m..E.
$08166288 mov ebx, [esp 0 +] dword 8B1C64 ..d
$0816628B push ebx 53 S
$0816628C ; 8B450083C504 .E..E.
FORTH> see tt
Flags: TOKENIZE, ANSI
: tt 0 PICK ; ok
Anyway, the usage of PICK with a constant argument is very common, and
as demonstrated, modern compilers optimize it into a plain stack
access, and the "base" plays no role for the generated code.
- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-15 11:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lb4lcj$9gi$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #27883 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > ... > Here Forth-83 PICK is indeed just one instruction (plus NEXT), but so > is Forth-79 PICK, which would look like this: > > mov ebp , dword ptr 0 [edi] [ebp*4] > ... > As can be seen, Forth-79 PICK is neither longer nor slower than > Forth-83 PICK. Assuming your example is correct, one case does not make the rule. Based on my experience, if every system were required to adopt the '79 convention for PICK and ROLL definitions would be needlessly longer and slower. > >FD 4/5 lists K. Scheisliek as author of the 0-based PICK ROLL proposal. If Anton > >wants more convincing he might consider contacting the author. > > I will ask him when I see him. Since you don't take me seriously, next time try the experts before coming to me. Better still, don't come to me at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-13 17:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jan13.180732@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27782 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>On 1/10/14 7:19 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
>>> Anton Ertl wrote:
>>>> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
>>>>> Anton Ertl wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Please enlighten me about the empirical basis of "zero-based" PICK and
>>>>>> ROLL.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the index is computed, zero-based is optimum.
>>>>
>>>> What index? What do you compare with what? Which metric are you
>>>> using?
>>>
>>> Observation and experience.
>>
>> Ok, so you do not explain what you mean with "index" or "optimum", and
>> you do not want to give any information on how to reproduce your
>> results. Do you want anyone to take you seriously?
>
>Ok, consider:
>
>10 CONSTANT SIZE
>CREATE DATA SIZE CELLS ALLOT
>: SHOW ( -- ) SIZE 0 DO DATA I + @ . LOOP ;
>
>Indexing here is zero-based. If it were 1-based, you'd have to say,
> SIZE 1+ 1 DO...
>
>which is awkward. So, that's how we normally think of indexing: 0 is the
>index of the start of whatever.
Sure, that's a common idiom in Forth. And maybe that's what Andrew
Haley meant with Forth being a 0-based language: some idiom, not a
language feature.
> Therefore, 0 PICK would be the TOS
>(ignoring the argument to PICK) plus 0, or DUP.
I fail to see a connection between that idiom and PICK (and ROLL).
Also, if you ignore or take notice of arbitrary things on the stack,
any variation of PICK can be seen as "0-based". E.g., the Forth-79
PICK is "0-based" if you take notice of the argument (and the return
value) for PICK. But given that there is no particular reason for
PICK to be "0-based", that does not matter.
- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-11 01:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <laq3tq$np9$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #27780 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes: >>Time has done what '94 couldn't and today virtually all Forth systems use >>symmetric division. Case closed. > > A friend of mine said that "virtually" is a synonym for "not". Gforth > implements floored division for / MOD etc. And bigForth does so, too. Of course, both decisions were my choice, but in Gforth before 0.7, we had symmetric division. It just started to show its problems, so I did the measurements whether this was really worth it... -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-13 11:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lavc97$m5a$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #27787 |
> Anton Ertl wrote:
>
> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
>>Time has done what '94 couldn't and today virtually all Forth systems use
>>symmetric division. Case closed.
>
> A friend of mine said that "virtually" is a synonym for "not".
Ascribing to words a new meaning is how Forth got itself into trouble.
Oxford dictionary:
"virtually adv. in effect, nearly, almost"
> Gforth
> implements floored division for / MOD etc.
How quaint. I use an MS-DOS based Forth. Welcome to the world of
things past.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-13 01:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1qo8uejj1212s$.zd0lsgcmks1o.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #27842 |
Op Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:21:29 +1100 schreef Ed: >> Anton Ertl wrote: >> >> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes: >>>Time has done what '94 couldn't and today virtually all Forth systems use >>>symmetric division. Case closed. >> >> A friend of mine said that "virtually" is a synonym for "not". > > Ascribing to words a new meaning is how Forth got itself into trouble. > > Oxford dictionary: > > "virtually adv. in effect, nearly, almost" > >> Gforth >> implements floored division for / MOD etc. > > How quaint. I use an MS-DOS based Forth. Welcome to the world of > things past. What has the OS to do with division? -- Coos CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-13 12:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lavenb$r31$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #27844 |
Coos Haak wrote: > Op Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:21:29 +1100 schreef Ed: > > >> Anton Ertl wrote: > >> > >> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes: > >>>Time has done what '94 couldn't and today virtually all Forth systems use > >>>symmetric division. Case closed. > >> > >> A friend of mine said that "virtually" is a synonym for "not". > > > > Ascribing to words a new meaning is how Forth got itself into trouble. > > > > Oxford dictionary: > > > > "virtually adv. in effect, nearly, almost" > > > >> Gforth > >> implements floored division for / MOD etc. > > > > How quaint. I use an MS-DOS based Forth. Welcome to the world of > > things past. > > What has the OS to do with division? I responded to a troll and it appears I must do so again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-13 03:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <laviel$mu3$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #27844 |
Coos Haak wrote:
> Op Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:21:29 +1100 schreef Ed:
>
>>> Anton Ertl wrote:
>>> Gforth
>>> implements floored division for / MOD etc.
>>
>> How quaint. I use an MS-DOS based Forth. Welcome to the world of
>> things past.
>
> What has the OS to do with division?
Ed's original statement was that times have changed and floored division is
now a thing of the past. Gforth changed to floored in 0.7.0, i.e. some
years ago, so we went back to the past where division was well-defined and
not a matter of "nobody cares about accurate results, as long as the
calculation is really fast".
Anybody with some more insight would have known that the time doesn't always
equate with progress. Some things are going in cycles.
The measurements I did with current Gforth on a Core i7 is that fm/mod is
slightly faster than sm/rem (both using idiv as base) for all-positive
numbers (the "default case" where it doesn't matter, and the performance
freaks want the fastest division they get). Don't ask my why it is actually
a bit faster, it should be equal. If you have a wild mix of positive and
negative numbers, fm/mod is slower (branch miss penalties). This however is
the case where accuracy does matter. um/mod is considerably faster, so
probably basing fm/mod on um/mod would give a significant advantage over
sm/rem in the default case (all positive, nothing to do). With some
trickery, fm/mod could also be written so that all the updates are
conditional moves, and no branch misses are taken.
A lot of programmers do "works for me" stuff. Stephen Pelc told me several
times "nobody has ever complained" when I complained about things. Hell,
no! I complained! I also say that nobody complained about our
(incompatible) switch from symmetric to floored division. Whatever, maybe
people were too timid to complain. I got to the point that I complained
about symmetric division, and I did the measurements ("is it really faster")
and fixed my problem.
Apart from Forth, floored division is used in Oberon and Haskell (Haskell
has quot and rem for symmetric divisions, as well). Even Microsoft
(Research ;-) comes to the conclusion that symmetric division is inferior:
http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/151917/divmodnote-letter.pdf
Euclidean division (where the remainder is always positive, no matter what
the signs are) is also pretty regular. There's also rounded division, where
the remainder can be positive or negative, but is never larger than half of
the quotient in magnitude; this is quite useful, too.
If of all choices the worst is taken, I suspect that it was a democratic
choice ;-). This is because democracy is the worst form of all governments,
but we don't know any better (well, worst choice syndrome again ;-).
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-13 03:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lavjgb$o5b$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #27846 |
Bernd Paysan wrote: > If of all choices the worst is taken, I suspect that it was a democratic > choice ;-). This is because democracy is the worst form of all > governments, but we don't know any better (well, worst choice syndrome > again ;-). BTW "Democracy": Wikipedia has a nice list of languages and whether they have dividend or divisor as sign base for modulos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulo_operation This list shows that we are very far from a consensus on this topic. But at least this list shows that most languages have found a consensus within their community, even C and C++ finally did that. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-12 19:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xfvosh8h1.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #27846 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: > Apart from Forth, floored division is used in Oberon and Haskell Also Python. ;-) > (Haskell has quot and rem for symmetric divisions, as well) Similarly with Common Lisp: http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/f_mod_r.htm CL's "floor" and "truncate" actually do the equivalent of Forth's /MOD and return two values.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-11 17:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <laqnb9$ueb$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #27780 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes: > >Anton Ertl wrote: > >> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes: > >> >Anton Ertl wrote: > >> > ... > >> >> Please enlighten me about the empirical basis of "zero-based" PICK and > >> >> ROLL. > >> > > >> >When the index is computed, zero-based is optimum. > >> > >> What index? What do you compare with what? Which metric are you > >> using? > > > >Observation and experience. > > Ok, so you do not explain what you mean with "index" or "optimum", and > you do not want to give any information on how to reproduce your > results. Do you want anyone to take you seriously? If you don't take me seriously that's sufficient for me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-02 17:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <52c59c94$0$9245$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #27510 |
In article <52c05cfd$0$2919$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> wrote: > >I would applaud it if Forth would feature some true logical operators, >because the return values of AND, OR and INVERT are not guaranteed to be >well-formed flags UNLESS their input were BOTH well-formed flags. Simple >maintenance can easily introduce subtle bugs which are hard to track. Not >to mention it obfuscates the intentions of the programmer - like using >COUNT for C@+. This can be fixed by trivial preambules: 'COUNT ALIAS C@+ \ In this source module we're going to make a c-like distinction between \ flags and masks. 'AND ALIAS & 'OR ALIAS | : && 0<> AND 0<> ; : || 0<> OR 0<> ; 'AND HIDDEN 'OR HIDDEN Isn't Forth nice? > >I *never ever* use INVERT for inverting a flag - that's what 0= is for. Actually that is what NOT is for. It is a defect in Forth that we can't use that name for historic reasons. > >Hans Bezemer Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-02 08:13 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <SKCdnS7qwtv6MVjPnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27591 |
On 1/2/14 7:06 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote: ... >> I *never ever* use INVERT for inverting a flag - that's what 0= is for. > > Actually that is what NOT is for. It is a defect in Forth that we can't > use that name for historic reasons. Exactly the opposite: NOT was omitted from Forth94 etc. because there had been historically two incompatible definitions of it. By not standardizing it, we left users free to define NOT for their applications in whichever way they prefer. Many applications have a "preamble" including generic definitions they'll need; your NOT can be included in yours. The hope of the Forth94 TC was that after some passage of time the air would be sufficiently cleared that a new standard could add NOT with whatever emerged as the predominant usage. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-02 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <52c5b70d$0$25045$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #27596 |
In article <SKCdnS7qwtv6MVjPnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@supernews.com>, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >On 1/2/14 7:06 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote: >... >>> I *never ever* use INVERT for inverting a flag - that's what 0= is for. >> >> Actually that is what NOT is for. It is a defect in Forth that we can't >> use that name for historic reasons. > >Exactly the opposite: NOT was omitted from Forth94 etc. because there >had been historically two incompatible definitions of it. By not >standardizing it, we left users free to define NOT for their >applications in whichever way they prefer. Many applications have a >"preamble" including generic definitions they'll need; your NOT can be >included in yours. I stand corrected, we *can* use that name. I always felt a bit uncomfortable adding : NOT 0= ; to the top of my program, but apparently that is okay. I thought it was frowned upon, because of the possibility of confusion. > >The hope of the Forth94 TC was that after some passage of time the air >would be sufficiently cleared that a new standard could add NOT with >whatever emerged as the predominant usage. > >Cheers, >Elizabeth Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 12:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jan3.135448@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27596 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>The hope of the Forth94 TC was that after some passage of time the air
>would be sufficiently cleared that a new standard could add NOT with
>whatever emerged as the predominant usage.
Nobody has made a proposal on that, and discussions here in the last
few years indicate that we probably won't be able to reach a consensus
on NOT. One may see that as a problem of the Forth-94 approach, but I
have happily used 0= and (rarely) INVERT for two decades, so not
standardizing NOT is not a real problem.
- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web