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 14 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 Next page →
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 11:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jan3.120049@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27585 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> No. Such a CORE wordset might be a good guidance, but is by no means
>> necessary; and AFAIK implementors of embedded systems Forth systems
>> pick and choose among CORE words as well as among others. E.g.,
>>>NUMBER, # and friends is not necessarily useful on some embedded
>> systems, whereas AGAIN might be present.
>
>Understood, but I don't think it removes the need for a reasonably
>small CORE. You might argue that the current notion of CORE is not
>ideal for smaller embedded systems, but then we'd have to decide what
>we really mean by that. A system without an interpreter might not
>need NUMBER etc, but that's a very different matter. Small embedded
>systems that can run an interative Forth system are still small, and
>still relevant.
I think the problem is that the needs of small embedded systems are
too diverse to be covered by a single CORE (at least if the core has
any size at all).
At EuroForth 2004 there was a workshop on CoreForth, a standard for
small embedded Forth systems (smaller than CORE). I was asked to
announce this and the mailing list, and I did that
<2004Dec26.163223@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>, and that's the last
that I heard of it. It seems to me that per-system (or
per-application) subsetting of standard Forth is good enough for most
embedded system developers, and most don't see a need for a standard
in this area.
- 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 | 2013-12-31 21:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <l9u7f7$qgv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #27521 |
AKK wrote: > Am 30.12.2013 07:49, schrieb Paul Rubin: > > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: > >> Both this one and the truth value were reasonable, it's just that they > >> broke a lot of code and made a lot of people mad. > > > > Yes, this background explains some things. I had the impression that > > Forth standardization efforts generally try to stick with documenting > > existing stuff, rather than introducing new stuff or breaking anything. > > That's why the change from 1 to 0 surprised me. It now sounds like they > > went the "break stuff" route back in 1983 and are still dealing with the > > repercussions, so they now stay away from that approach. > > > > Well, people back then were young and revolutionary. ;-) > Now all Forthers are old and conservative. > > IMO Forth's evolution is blocked because of some wanting it to stay the > ultimate compact embedded systems development tool, whereas others > wanting it to be a powerful computer language. BTW the Lisp world once > solved that dilemma by forking to the Scheme and CommonLisp paths. I think it's wishful thinking to imagine a language based on a stack and RPN is ever going to compete with languages that operate at a higher level of abstraction. Forth places demands on programmers that other languages don't (and won't) entertain. The ones you call "young and revolutionary" believed in Forth - including the propaganda. As they matured they saw Forth for what it was - a specialized language which works very well for certain applications. Most of them moved on. Evolution works through countless mistakes. We don't have the time. Forth requires intelligent design - which we also lack.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 09:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <52c12b69$0$15341$703f8584@textnews.kpn.nl> |
| In reply to | #27520 |
On 30/12/2013 07:49, Paul Rubin wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >> Both this one and the truth value were reasonable, it's just that they >> broke a lot of code and made a lot of people mad. > > Yes, this background explains some things. I had the impression that > Forth standardization efforts generally try to stick with documenting > existing stuff, rather than introducing new stuff or breaking anything. > That's why the change from 1 to 0 surprised me. It now sounds like they > went the "break stuff" route back in 1983 and are still dealing with the > repercussions, so they now stay away from that approach. > I wonder. Earlier in another thread, you asked about culture differences. Possibly this is the case here. They did not take the 'break stuff' route, but a fix route... Quite a different way of interpretation! Negative vs positive connotation. Mr. Moore and others continued on that route, rigorously (and in general stay away from here)! I think in retrospect, those using Forth and involved with standardization in those days, were different from the current crop. Both in culture and mentality. Obviously depends whether you see this as negative or positive. As for breaking, they dealt with that ages ago. There's the colon, lest you forget. What repercussions? ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 03:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Bs-dnReTbuLPo1zPnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27520 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >> Both this one and the truth value were reasonable, it's just that they >> broke a lot of code and made a lot of people mad. > > Yes, this background explains some things. I had the impression that > Forth standardization efforts generally try to stick with documenting > existing stuff, rather than introducing new stuff or breaking anything. > That's why the change from 1 to 0 surprised me. It now sounds like they > went the "break stuff" route back in 1983 and are still dealing with the > repercussions, so they now stay away from that approach. That's not the reason, IMO. If things were just as broken now as they were before 1983, similar radical change would be needed. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 16:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2013Dec30.170626@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27523 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>That's not the reason, IMO. If things were just as broken now as they
>were before 1983, similar radical change would be needed.
What breakage in Forth-79 made the change from 0-or-1 to
0-or-all-bits-set necessary?
What breakage in Forth-79 made the changes to PICK and ROLL necessary.
And what breakage in Forth-79 made it necessary to implement these
changes as incompatible changes of existing words instead of
introducing new names?
Concerning the brokenness of "before 1983", what was broken how? IIRC
Elizabeth Rather once claimed that Forth-79 was contradictory, but she
did not point to any concrete problems and neither do you.
- 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 | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 10:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <VYadnUuYxt2rP1zPnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27528 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>That's not the reason, IMO. If things were just as broken now as they >>were before 1983, similar radical change would be needed. > > What breakage in Forth-79 made the change from 0-or-1 to > 0-or-all-bits-set necessary? None at all, but I didn't state (or even imply) that it did. What I did say is that Forth-79 was so broken that there was no need for Forth-83 to be compatible with it. > What breakage in Forth-79 made the changes to PICK and ROLL necessary. > > And what breakage in Forth-79 made it necessary to implement these > changes as incompatible changes of existing words instead of > introducing new names? > > Concerning the brokenness of "before 1983", what was broken how? IIRC > Elizabeth Rather once claimed that Forth-79 was contradictory, but she > did not point to any concrete problems and neither do you. IIRC, Forth-79 didn't succeed in capturing the consensus of the Forth vendors and implementors. It was, at best, a stopgap affair, and it mandated some things (i.e. 16-bit addresses) that were obviously wrong by 1983. Some Forth vendors had already looked at changing the form of a well-formed flag from 1 to all 1s, and weren't going to let Forth-79 stop them. Given that breaking changes were inevitable, there was no point inventing new names for zero-based PICK and ROLL . Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 17:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2013Dec30.185008@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27529 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>That's not the reason, IMO. If things were just as broken now as they
>>>were before 1983, similar radical change would be needed.
>>
>> What breakage in Forth-79 made the change from 0-or-1 to
>> 0-or-all-bits-set necessary?
>
>None at all, but I didn't state (or even imply) that it did. What I
>did say is that Forth-79 was so broken that there was no need for
>Forth-83 to be compatible with it.
...
>IIRC, Forth-79 didn't succeed in capturing the consensus of the Forth
>vendors and implementors.
Maybe not, but neither did Forth-83: Many vendors and implementors
stayed with Forth-79. The amount of damage that the incompatibilities
of Forth-83 did to the popularity of Forth probably is huge.
> It was, at best, a stopgap affair, and it
>mandated some things (i.e. 16-bit addresses) that were obviously wrong
>by 1983.
And yet Forth-83 also mandated 16-bit addresses. Don't claim
Forth-94's merits on Forth-83.
>Some Forth vendors had already looked at changing the form
>of a well-formed flag from 1 to all 1s, and weren't going to let
>Forth-79 stop them.
So what? There are always non-standard implementations. A well-known
implementor names exclusive or OR and does not let any standard (all
of which define OR as bitwise (inclusive) or) stop him. That's no
good reason to make incompatible changes in a standard.
> Given that breaking changes were inevitable,
What breaking changes that Forth-83 introduced were inevitable?
Remember: not mandating 16-bit cells was not one of them. And not
mandating 16-bit cells in Forth-94 did not break existing code.
>there was no point inventing new names for zero-based PICK and ROLL .
There was no point in zero-based PICK and ROLL. But if you want them,
by all means give them a new name, and all the other incompatible
words as well. That's the approach Forth-94 took, and that approach
worked well.
- 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 | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 12:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8-6dnVBiuJhdJFzPnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27541 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>>>That's not the reason, IMO. If things were just as broken now as they >>>>were before 1983, similar radical change would be needed. >>> >>> What breakage in Forth-79 made the change from 0-or-1 to >>> 0-or-all-bits-set necessary? >> >>None at all, but I didn't state (or even imply) that it did. What I >>did say is that Forth-79 was so broken that there was no need for >>Forth-83 to be compatible with it. > ... >>IIRC, Forth-79 didn't succeed in capturing the consensus of the Forth >>vendors and implementors. > > Maybe not, but neither did Forth-83: Many vendors and implementors > stayed with Forth-79. The amount of damage that the incompatibilities > of Forth-83 did to the popularity of Forth probably is huge. I doubt that very much, but we'll never know. >>It was, at best, a stopgap affair, and it mandated some things >>(i.e. 16-bit addresses) that were obviously wrong by 1983. > > And yet Forth-83 also mandated 16-bit addresses. Don't claim > Forth-94's merits on Forth-83. Fair enough. I'm not really trying to do that, just pointing out the deficiences that were there. >>Some Forth vendors had already looked at changing the form >>of a well-formed flag from 1 to all 1s, and weren't going to let >>Forth-79 stop them. > > So what? There are always non-standard implementations. Sure, but the idea was to find a consensus, and it made sense at the time to try to discover what that might be. > A well-known implementor names exclusive or OR and does not let any > standard (all of which define OR as bitwise (inclusive) or) stop > him. That's no good reason to make incompatible changes in a > standard. I would have said that if there is a reasonable expectation that implementors are going in that direction, it's an excellent reason. In fact, it's the *best possible* reason. >> Given that breaking changes were inevitable, > > What breaking changes that Forth-83 introduced were inevitable? Some changes were inevitable because Forth-79 handn't been widely accepted and therefore everyone's code was going to be, to some extent, broken by something in the standard. > Remember: not mandating 16-bit cells was not one of them. And not > mandating 16-bit cells in Forth-94 did not break existing code. > >>there was no point inventing new names for zero-based PICK and ROLL . > > There was no point in zero-based PICK and ROLL. But if you want them, > by all means give them a new name, Err, we are talking about 1983! PICK and ROLL hadn't been around for very long, and 1-based was just stupid (IMVHO, YMMV, &c): Forth is almost entirely a zero-based language, and it makes no sense for PICK and ROLL to be an exception. > and all the other incompatible words as well. That's the approach > Forth-94 took, and that approach worked well. Would that approach have worked in 1983? There doesn't seem to have been much appetatit for that at the time, and in any case we'll never know. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-02 11:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jan2.122156@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27545 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>It was, at best, a stopgap affair, and it mandated some things
>>>(i.e. 16-bit addresses) that were obviously wrong by 1983.
>>
>> And yet Forth-83 also mandated 16-bit addresses. Don't claim
>> Forth-94's merits on Forth-83.
>
>Fair enough. I'm not really trying to do that, just pointing out the
>deficiences that were there.
So Forth-83 "was, at best, a stopgap affair, and it mandated some
things (i.e. 16-bit addresses) that were obviously wrong by 1983."
And while doing that, it introduced gratuitious incompatibilities.
It's hard to imagine that anything worse could have happened to
standard Forth.
>>>Some Forth vendors had already looked at changing the form
>>>of a well-formed flag from 1 to all 1s, and weren't going to let
>>>Forth-79 stop them.
>>
>> So what? There are always non-standard implementations.
>
>Sure, but the idea was to find a consensus, and it made sense at the
>time to try to discover what that might be.
And Forth-83 failed in finding a consensus, at least among the wider
community.
>> A well-known implementor names exclusive or OR and does not let any
>> standard (all of which define OR as bitwise (inclusive) or) stop
>> him. That's no good reason to make incompatible changes in a
>> standard.
>
>I would have said that if there is a reasonable expectation that
>implementors are going in that direction, it's an excellent reason.
>In fact, it's the *best possible* reason.
So we should have standardized "{" in Forth-200x instead of "{:"? I
don't think so, and in this case there was not just "reasonable
expectation", but "{" was widely implemented and used; and "{" was not
standardized differently before.
>>> Given that breaking changes were inevitable,
>>
>> What breaking changes that Forth-83 introduced were inevitable?
>
>Some changes were inevitable because Forth-79 handn't been widely
>accepted and therefore everyone's code was going to be, to some
>extent, broken by something in the standard.
I cannot follow your reasoning (if there is one).
E.g., Forth-94 LOCALS| has not been widely accepted, either, so
Forth-2012 introduces {: as a better replacement, but that does not
break any programs that use LOCALS|. It would not even break them if
LOCALS| was de-standardized in Forth-2012: iForth could still have
implemented LOCALS| while being compliant with Forth-2012, and Marcel
Hendrix' programs would still continue to work on iForth. The
Forth-83 approach would have been to reverse the order of locals in
LOCALS|, and that would really have broken all existing programs that
use LOCALS|.
So no, breaking changes are not in any way inevitable or necessary.
>> Remember: not mandating 16-bit cells was not one of them. And not
>> mandating 16-bit cells in Forth-94 did not break existing code.
>>
>>>there was no point inventing new names for zero-based PICK and ROLL .
>>
>> There was no point in zero-based PICK and ROLL. But if you want them,
>> by all means give them a new name,
>
>Err, we are talking about 1983! PICK and ROLL hadn't been around for
>very long, and 1-based was just stupid (IMVHO, YMMV, &c): Forth is
>almost entirely a zero-based language, and it makes no sense for PICK
>and ROLL to be an exception.
PICK and ROLL had been in Forth-79. Even for things that have not
been standardized like Forth, Inc.'s usage of "{" and the various uses
of PARSE-WORD, we avoided breakage by using new names ("{:" and
PARSE-NAME) in Forth-2012; Forth-83 certainly should have done so for
words that were already standardized and widely implemented and used.
Where is Forth 0-based? DO has no implied base and there are no array
definition/access words with an implied base, and no other examples
come to my mind at the moment. Even if you want 0-based, you could
simply define the Forth-79 PICK as (zero-based)
|PICK n1 -- n2 240
| Return the contents of the n1+1-th stack value, counting n1
| itself. An error condition results for n less than one.
| 2 PICK is equivalent to OVER. {1..n}
instead of (actual definition)
|PICK n1 -- n2 240
| Return the contents of the n1-th stack value, not counting n1
| itself. An error condition results for n less than one.
| 2 PICK is equivalent to OVER. {1..n}
>> and all the other incompatible words as well. That's the approach
>> Forth-94 took, and that approach worked well.
>
>Would that approach have worked in 1983?
Why not? Of course it would have been even better to avoid changes
with zero benefit like the one for PICK and ROLL, and changes with
minimal benefit like the true=-1 change in the first place.
- 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 | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-02 07:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <bdadndG0WZNW-VjPnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27586 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>>It was, at best, a stopgap affair, and it mandated some things
>>>>(i.e. 16-bit addresses) that were obviously wrong by 1983.
>>>
>>> And yet Forth-83 also mandated 16-bit addresses. Don't claim
>>> Forth-94's merits on Forth-83.
>>
>>Fair enough. I'm not really trying to do that, just pointing out the
>>deficiences that were there.
>
> So Forth-83 "was, at best, a stopgap affair, and it mandated some
> things (i.e. 16-bit addresses) that were obviously wrong by 1983."
> And while doing that, it introduced gratuitious incompatibilities.
> It's hard to imagine that anything worse could have happened to
> standard Forth.
You are making a completely ahistorical argument. At the time, there
were fig-FORTH programs, polyFORTH programs, and so on. When you
started to write a Forth program, you wrote it for the system you were
using. Standardization was, at most a tick-box item. I knew that I
was writing polyFORTH, and if I wanted Forth-83 compatibility I could
load the compatibility words, but I never heard of anyone doing that,
even though I was supporting a fairly large base of users.
>>>>Some Forth vendors had already looked at changing the form
>>>>of a well-formed flag from 1 to all 1s, and weren't going to let
>>>>Forth-79 stop them.
>>>
>>> So what? There are always non-standard implementations.
>>
>>Sure, but the idea was to find a consensus, and it made sense at the
>>time to try to discover what that might be.
>
> And Forth-83 failed in finding a consensus, at least among the wider
> community.
Indeed it did; that's what ANS achieved later. AFAIK there wasn't any
appetite for perpetuating Forth-79, and trying to apply the reasoning
of the ANS standardization effort to a very different time is
pointless.
>>I would have said that if there is a reasonable expectation that
>>implementors are going in that direction, it's an excellent reason.
>>In fact, it's the *best possible* reason.
>
> So we should have standardized "{" in Forth-200x instead of "{:"? I
> don't think so,
And neither do I.
> and in this case there was not just "reasonable expectation", but
> "{" was widely implemented and used; and "{" was not standardized
> differently before.
>
>>>> Given that breaking changes were inevitable,
>>>
>>> What breaking changes that Forth-83 introduced were inevitable?
>>
>>Some changes were inevitable because Forth-79 handn't been widely
>>accepted and therefore everyone's code was going to be, to some
>>extent, broken by something in the standard.
>
> I cannot follow your reasoning (if there is one).
>
> E.g., Forth-94 LOCALS| has not been widely accepted, either,
The situation is completely different. Reasoning that applied to
Forth-79 is irrelevant to Forth-94. Forth-94 was reasonably
successful, and we have to respect that.
>>Err, we are talking about 1983! PICK and ROLL hadn't been around for
>>very long, and 1-based was just stupid (IMVHO, YMMV, &c): Forth is
>>almost entirely a zero-based language, and it makes no sense for PICK
>>and ROLL to be an exception.
>
> PICK and ROLL had been in Forth-79.
So?
> Where is Forth 0-based?
Pretty much everywhere, as can be seen from a few seconds' reading of
a Forth program. It's not mandated, but tends to be so.
>>> and all the other incompatible words as well. That's the approach
>>> Forth-94 took, and that approach worked well.
>>
>>Would that approach have worked in 1983?
>
> Why not? Of course it would have been even better to avoid changes
> with zero benefit like the one for PICK and ROLL, and changes with
> minimal benefit like the true=-1 change in the first place.
Well, I note your opinion, but I do not agree.
Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 11:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jan3.121350@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27587 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>>>It was, at best, a stopgap affair, and it mandated some things
>>>>>(i.e. 16-bit addresses) that were obviously wrong by 1983.
>>>>
>>>> And yet Forth-83 also mandated 16-bit addresses. Don't claim
>>>> Forth-94's merits on Forth-83.
>>>
>>>Fair enough. I'm not really trying to do that, just pointing out the
>>>deficiences that were there.
>>
>> So Forth-83 "was, at best, a stopgap affair, and it mandated some
>> things (i.e. 16-bit addresses) that were obviously wrong by 1983."
>> And while doing that, it introduced gratuitious incompatibilities.
>> It's hard to imagine that anything worse could have happened to
>> standard Forth.
>
>You are making a completely ahistorical argument. At the time, there
>were fig-FORTH programs, polyFORTH programs, and so on. When you
>started to write a Forth program, you wrote it for the system you were
>using. Standardization was, at most a tick-box item. I knew that I
>was writing polyFORTH, and if I wanted Forth-83 compatibility I could
>load the compatibility words, but I never heard of anyone doing that,
>even though I was supporting a fairly large base of users.
Well that may have been the case for you, which at best undermines
your claim about the success of Forth-83.
I started programming in Forth on a Forth-79 system based on
fig-Forth; there were two books I started with that I bought in 1983:
Winfield's "The complete Forth", which used Forth-79, and Zech's book,
which covered fig-Forth with an Appendix about Forth-79. From my POV
Forth-79 was widely accepted; maybe Forth, Inc. and their followers
are the vocal minority for Forth-79.
>AFAIK there wasn't any
>appetite for perpetuating Forth-79, and trying to apply the reasoning
>of the ANS standardization effort to a very different time is
>pointless.
Sure, your corner of the Forth world had no interest in Forth-79, but
that was not true for everyone, and there were even people who the
stuck with Forh-79 long after Forth-83 had come out (Elizabeth Rather
called them Forth-79 holdouts). And the reasoning used in Forth-94
was just as valid in 1983: if Forth-83 had not introduced incompatible
changes, there would have been a smooth transition possible from
Forth-79 to Forth-83, just as there was for Forth-94, and more people
would have made the transition, and there would have been less, if any
Forth-79 holdouts.
>> E.g., Forth-94 LOCALS| has not been widely accepted, either,
>
>The situation is completely different. Reasoning that applied to
>Forth-79 is irrelevant to Forth-94. Forth-94 was reasonably
>successful, and we have to respect that.
Forth-79 was reasonably successful, even if not in your corner of the
Forth world. Forth-94 LOCALS| was less successful IMO than Forth-79.
>>>Err, we are talking about 1983! PICK and ROLL hadn't been around for
>>>very long, and 1-based was just stupid (IMVHO, YMMV, &c): Forth is
>>>almost entirely a zero-based language, and it makes no sense for PICK
>>>and ROLL to be an exception.
>>
>> PICK and ROLL had been in Forth-79.
>
>So?
So Forth-83 should not have defined these names with an incompatible
meaning. And 4 years was a long time at this stage in Forth
development.
>> Where is Forth 0-based?
>
>Pretty much everywhere, as can be seen from a few seconds' reading of
>a Forth program. It's not mandated, but tends to be so.
Ok, so Forth is not 0-based.
In any case, however much of a zero fetish someone may have, I really
cannot follow why 2 ROLL should be more fitting for ROT than 3 ROLL.
I have programmed much longer in Forth-83/94 than in Forth-79, and not
used PICK and ROLL much in either standard, yet I still find the
Forth-83 PICK and ROLL strange and the Forth-79 variant more
intuitive. So I revert my earlier evaluation of PICK and ROLL: there
is a little advantage in intuitiveness for Forth-79's PICK and ROLL
over Forth-83's.
- 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 | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 07:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <HdadnVQwsdhwIVvPnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27626 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>>>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>>>>>It was, at best, a stopgap affair, and it mandated some things >>>>>>(i.e. 16-bit addresses) that were obviously wrong by 1983. >>>>> >>>>> And yet Forth-83 also mandated 16-bit addresses. Don't claim >>>>> Forth-94's merits on Forth-83. >>>> >>>>Fair enough. I'm not really trying to do that, just pointing out the >>>>deficiences that were there. >>> >>> So Forth-83 "was, at best, a stopgap affair, and it mandated some >>> things (i.e. 16-bit addresses) that were obviously wrong by 1983." >>> And while doing that, it introduced gratuitious incompatibilities. >>> It's hard to imagine that anything worse could have happened to >>> standard Forth. >> >>You are making a completely ahistorical argument. At the time, there >>were fig-FORTH programs, polyFORTH programs, and so on. When you >>started to write a Forth program, you wrote it for the system you were >>using. Standardization was, at most a tick-box item. I knew that I >>was writing polyFORTH, and if I wanted Forth-83 compatibility I could >>load the compatibility words, but I never heard of anyone doing that, >>even though I was supporting a fairly large base of users. > > Well that may have been the case for you, which at best undermines > your claim about the success of Forth-83. I'm not sure about what claim you are referring to. All think I said was that it was widely used. > I started programming in Forth on a Forth-79 system based on > fig-Forth; there were two books I started with that I bought in > 1983: Winfield's "The complete Forth", which used Forth-79, and > Zech's book, which covered fig-Forth with an Appendix about > Forth-79. From my POV Forth-79 was widely accepted; maybe Forth, > Inc. and their followers are the vocal minority for Forth-79. Maybe, but I don't think so. At the time, I guess 90% of the Forth world used fig-FORTH, but in the absence of a survey all we have to go on is our memories of our own corners. >>AFAIK there wasn't any appetite for perpetuating Forth-79, and >>trying to apply the reasoning of the ANS standardization effort to a >>very different time is pointless. > > Sure, your corner of the Forth world had no interest in Forth-79, > but that was not true for everyone, and there were even people who > the stuck with Forh-79 long after Forth-83 had come out (Elizabeth > Rather called them Forth-79 holdouts). And the reasoning used in > Forth-94 was just as valid in 1983: if Forth-83 had not introduced > incompatible changes, there would have been a smooth transition > possible from Forth-79 to Forth-83, just as there was for Forth-94, > and more people would have made the transition, and there would have > been less, if any Forth-79 holdouts. There's no way to know. You can't talk about this without actually considering the documents themselves. Forth-79 was a first draft. (I'm ignoring Forth-78.) Forth-83 was a decent basis for a real standardization effort but not ready to be a standard worthy of the name. The difference between ANS and Forth-83 is one of night and day. (All IMO, YMMV, &c.) > I really cannot follow why 2 ROLL should be more fitting for ROT > than 3 ROLL. > > I have programmed much longer in Forth-83/94 than in Forth-79, and not > used PICK and ROLL much in either standard, yet I still find the > Forth-83 PICK and ROLL strange and the Forth-79 variant more > intuitive. OK. I certainly think that we are into Angels Dancing On The Head Of A Pin territory by now. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 15:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jan3.162302@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27633 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>You are making a completely ahistorical argument. At the time, there
>>>were fig-FORTH programs, polyFORTH programs, and so on. When you
>>>started to write a Forth program, you wrote it for the system you were
>>>using. Standardization was, at most a tick-box item. I knew that I
>>>was writing polyFORTH, and if I wanted Forth-83 compatibility I could
>>>load the compatibility words, but I never heard of anyone doing that,
>>>even though I was supporting a fairly large base of users.
>>
>> Well that may have been the case for you, which at best undermines
>> your claim about the success of Forth-83.
>
>I'm not sure about what claim you are referring to. All think I said
>was that it was widely used.
That claim for example.
>> I started programming in Forth on a Forth-79 system based on
>> fig-Forth; there were two books I started with that I bought in
>> 1983: Winfield's "The complete Forth", which used Forth-79, and
>> Zech's book, which covered fig-Forth with an Appendix about
>> Forth-79. From my POV Forth-79 was widely accepted; maybe Forth,
>> Inc. and their followers are the vocal minority for Forth-79.
>
>Maybe, but I don't think so. At the time, I guess 90% of the Forth
>world used fig-FORTH
Then Forth-83 should not have broken compatibility with fig-Forth,
either. And fig-Forth used true=1 (but did not have PICK and ROLL).
>You can't talk about this without actually considering the documents
>themselves.
Ok. What about the Forth-79 document justifies the change of the
canonical flag from 1 to -1? And the change of PICK and ROLL?
>> I have programmed much longer in Forth-83/94 than in Forth-79, and not
>> used PICK and ROLL much in either standard, yet I still find the
>> Forth-83 PICK and ROLL strange and the Forth-79 variant more
>> intuitive.
>
>OK. I certainly think that we are into Angels Dancing On The Head Of
>A Pin territory by now.
Maybe, but then so was the Forth-83 committee. Except that I don't
propose changing PICK and ROLL, and they did.
- 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 | Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 16:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlcdnop.3h4.st@tumtum.plumbweb.net> |
| In reply to | #27642 |
On 2014-01-03, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > What about the Forth-79 document justifies the change of the canonical > flag from 1 to -1? Everyone might have used 1 for true, but Forth-79 only says is "non-zero = true". Forth-83 merely added that standard words return all bits set. Fault them for specifying instead of documenting, but not for creating a conflict between what the standards said about true. tristan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 08:54 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <CJWdnTj9V6n4mlrPnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27643 |
On 1/3/14 6:02 AM, Tristan Plumb wrote: > On 2014-01-03, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >> What about the Forth-79 document justifies the change of the canonical >> flag from 1 to -1? > > Everyone might have used 1 for true, but Forth-79 only says is "non-zero > = true". Forth-83 merely added that standard words return all bits set. > > Fault them for specifying instead of documenting, but not for creating a > conflict between what the standards said about true. "Non-zero = true" for Forth83 and Forth94 etc., as far as words like IF, WHILE, and UNTIL are concerned. The issue is what do the comparison words (e.g. 0=, <, etc.) return? In all systems prior to Forth83 it was 1 for TRUE, but after Forth83 it was -1. The correct question is not, "what is TRUE" but "what is a well-formed flag returned by the comparison operators." 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 | Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 19:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlce5ls.3h4.st@tumtum.plumbweb.net> |
| In reply to | #27651 |
On 2014-01-03, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > On 1/3/14 6:02 AM, Tristan Plumb wrote: >> On 2014-01-03, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> What about the Forth-79 document justifies the change of the canonical >>> flag from 1 to -1? >> Everyone might have used 1 for true, but Forth-79 only says is "non-zero >> = true". Forth-83 merely added that standard words return all bits set. >> Fault them for specifying instead of documenting, but not for creating a >> conflict between what the standards said about true. > "Non-zero = true" for Forth83 and Forth94 etc., as far as words like IF, > WHILE, and UNTIL are concerned. The issue is what do the comparison > words (e.g. 0=, <, etc.) return? In all systems prior to Forth83 it was > 1 for TRUE, but after Forth83 it was -1. The correct question is not, > "what is TRUE" but "what is a well-formed flag returned by the > comparison operators." Forth79 does not specify a well-formed flag to be returned by the comparison operators! I believe you when you say everyone used 1, but until I read the document I was lead to believe that Forth79 stated 1 and Forth83 changed it to -1. Hence 'specifying instead of documenting'. tristan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 10:12 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <JY2dnSCo3dZRhFrPnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27654 |
On 1/3/14 9:59 AM, Tristan Plumb wrote: > On 2014-01-03, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >> On 1/3/14 6:02 AM, Tristan Plumb wrote: >>> On 2014-01-03, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>>> What about the Forth-79 document justifies the change of the canonical >>>> flag from 1 to -1? > >>> Everyone might have used 1 for true, but Forth-79 only says is "non-zero >>> = true". Forth-83 merely added that standard words return all bits set. > >>> Fault them for specifying instead of documenting, but not for creating a >>> conflict between what the standards said about true. > >> "Non-zero = true" for Forth83 and Forth94 etc., as far as words like IF, >> WHILE, and UNTIL are concerned. The issue is what do the comparison >> words (e.g. 0=, <, etc.) return? In all systems prior to Forth83 it was >> 1 for TRUE, but after Forth83 it was -1. The correct question is not, >> "what is TRUE" but "what is a well-formed flag returned by the >> comparison operators." > > Forth79 does not specify a well-formed flag to be returned by the > comparison operators! I believe you when you say everyone used 1, but > until I read the document I was lead to believe that Forth79 stated 1 and > Forth83 changed it to -1. Hence 'specifying instead of documenting'. Yes it does. In 4. Definition of Terms for "flag" Forth79 says, "...Standard word definitions leave 1 for true, 0 for false." Then in the glossory for words such as 0< the stack picture is: n -- flag 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 | Tristan Plumb <st@trstn.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 20:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlce6m5.3h4.st@tumtum.plumbweb.net> |
| In reply to | #27655 |
On 2014-01-03, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > On 1/3/14 9:59 AM, Tristan Plumb wrote: >> On 2014-01-03, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >>> On 1/3/14 6:02 AM, Tristan Plumb wrote: >>>> On 2014-01-03, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>>>> What about the Forth-79 document justifies the change of the canonical >>>>> flag from 1 to -1? >> >>>> Everyone might have used 1 for true, but Forth-79 only says is "non-zero >>>> = true". Forth-83 merely added that standard words return all bits set. >> >>>> Fault them for specifying instead of documenting, but not for creating a >>>> conflict between what the standards said about true. >> >>> "Non-zero = true" for Forth83 and Forth94 etc., as far as words like IF, >>> WHILE, and UNTIL are concerned. The issue is what do the comparison >>> words (e.g. 0=, <, etc.) return? In all systems prior to Forth83 it was >>> 1 for TRUE, but after Forth83 it was -1. The correct question is not, >>> "what is TRUE" but "what is a well-formed flag returned by the >>> comparison operators." >> >> Forth79 does not specify a well-formed flag to be returned by the >> comparison operators! I believe you when you say everyone used 1, but >> until I read the document I was lead to believe that Forth79 stated 1 and >> Forth83 changed it to -1. Hence 'specifying instead of documenting'. > Yes it does. In 4. Definition of Terms for "flag" Forth79 says, > "...Standard word definitions leave 1 for true, 0 for false." Then in > the glossory for words such as 0< the stack picture is: n -- flag <http://forthworks.com/standards/F79/F79.txt> line 127 |flag | | A numerical value with two logical states; 0 = false, non- | zero = true. Were there multiple versions? Confused, tristan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 20:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlce7e4.3h4.st@tumtum.plumbweb.net> |
| In reply to | #27656 |
On 2014-01-03, Tristan Plumb <st@trstn.net> wrote: ><http://forthworks.com/standards/F79/F79.txt> line 127 >|flag >| >| A numerical value with two logical states; 0 = false, non- >| zero = true. > > Were there multiple versions? I see, this is only an extract of the glossary and I was reading the glossary definitions. Not the _standard_ definitions. Sorry for the noise. Tristan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 11:48 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <5sWdnenhZcOorVrPnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27656 |
On 1/3/14 10:17 AM, Tristan Plumb wrote: > On 2014-01-03, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >> On 1/3/14 9:59 AM, Tristan Plumb wrote: >>> On 2014-01-03, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/3/14 6:02 AM, Tristan Plumb wrote: >>>>> On 2014-01-03, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>>>>> What about the Forth-79 document justifies the change of the canonical >>>>>> flag from 1 to -1? >>> >>>>> Everyone might have used 1 for true, but Forth-79 only says is "non-zero >>>>> = true". Forth-83 merely added that standard words return all bits set. >>> >>>>> Fault them for specifying instead of documenting, but not for creating a >>>>> conflict between what the standards said about true. >>> >>>> "Non-zero = true" for Forth83 and Forth94 etc., as far as words like IF, >>>> WHILE, and UNTIL are concerned. The issue is what do the comparison >>>> words (e.g. 0=, <, etc.) return? In all systems prior to Forth83 it was >>>> 1 for TRUE, but after Forth83 it was -1. The correct question is not, >>>> "what is TRUE" but "what is a well-formed flag returned by the >>>> comparison operators." >>> >>> Forth79 does not specify a well-formed flag to be returned by the >>> comparison operators! I believe you when you say everyone used 1, but >>> until I read the document I was lead to believe that Forth79 stated 1 and >>> Forth83 changed it to -1. Hence 'specifying instead of documenting'. > >> Yes it does. In 4. Definition of Terms for "flag" Forth79 says, >> "...Standard word definitions leave 1 for true, 0 for false." Then in >> the glossory for words such as 0< the stack picture is: n -- flag > > <http://forthworks.com/standards/F79/F79.txt> line 127 > |flag > | > | A numerical value with two logical states; 0 = false, non- > | zero = true. > > Were there multiple versions? It's in the one I found at https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/lnmaurer/web/forth/Forth-79.pdf. You are quoting the first part of the definition of "flag". I quoted the third sentence. This is consistent with the distinction between "truth" as perceived by IF, etc. (zero vs non-zero), and "TRUE" as a flag returned by 0= etc. (1 for Forth79, -1 after Forth83). 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]
Page 14 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web