Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #28006 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-01-22 13:52 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-01-26 01:59 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 412 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-22 13:52 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-22 21:57 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-22 14:10 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-22 14:11 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-23 00:14 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-22 14:28 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-23 20:22 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-23 12:34 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-25 22:44 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-25 08:49 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-25 19:40 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-26 23:01 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-23 03:43 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-23 10:10 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2014-01-23 10:31 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-23 11:35 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2014-01-23 13:27 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 05:52 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-23 15:50 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 01:51 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 02:00 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 02:08 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 02:26 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-24 14:23 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 05:41 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-26 00:49 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 03:01 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 05:52 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-23 08:21 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? BF <foxaudioresearch@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 06:54 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-23 16:00 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-23 20:21 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-23 20:33 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-24 04:33 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-10 23:14 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2014-01-24 10:49 +0200
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-24 03:26 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-24 04:25 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-27 22:09 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-28 22:38 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 03:22 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-23 06:52 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-23 16:03 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-23 10:14 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-23 17:42 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 10:42 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-24 15:01 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-23 17:21 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-23 12:16 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-24 09:25 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-24 07:16 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 05:43 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-24 10:57 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-25 03:58 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-27 17:24 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-27 19:25 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-28 03:34 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-24 14:50 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-27 17:15 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-24 21:00 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-25 20:47 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-10 23:36 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-01-24 00:44 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-24 09:20 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-23 10:02 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-23 09:05 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-27 00:43 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-26 18:04 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-26 11:27 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-26 22:09 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-26 15:35 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-29 01:57 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-28 13:46 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-28 12:12 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-30 17:19 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-01 00:40 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-31 06:33 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-31 12:13 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-31 08:36 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-01 00:06 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-31 15:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-03 16:18 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-01 03:17 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-02 13:10 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-02 16:06 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-02 10:43 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-02 18:39 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-03 14:18 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-02 18:49 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-03 09:35 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-02-03 09:56 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-02-03 02:50 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-02-03 03:17 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-03 14:31 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-03 19:17 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-04 12:23 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-03 19:26 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-04 08:05 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-02 19:07 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-30 15:59 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-31 02:34 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-31 02:38 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-30 15:51 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-03 14:58 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-03 12:06 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-09 15:04 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-09 10:56 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-10 15:58 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-10 12:06 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-11 11:22 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-02-11 05:23 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-12 10:54 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-10 18:12 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-10 05:13 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-10 15:44 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-10 10:40 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-10 17:47 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-10 16:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-10 11:09 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-10 17:20 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-10 12:14 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-02-10 22:38 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-11 03:46 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-02-11 10:30 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-11 18:24 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-12 15:02 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-12 11:23 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-13 09:25 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-13 04:54 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-13 13:41 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-13 14:14 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-13 08:41 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-13 15:29 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-13 12:07 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-15 16:14 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-15 13:22 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-17 12:28 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-17 14:05 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-17 09:49 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-17 19:06 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-17 12:52 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-17 22:51 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 04:36 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 09:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 05:01 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 14:19 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-18 08:28 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 17:14 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-18 11:46 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-18 18:20 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-19 17:10 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-19 23:17 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-20 09:55 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-21 20:15 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-22 12:08 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 14:45 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-23 02:29 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 21:29 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-23 22:33 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 22:13 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-24 17:30 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-24 14:38 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-26 12:59 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-26 20:12 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 04:54 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-02-27 12:56 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 06:30 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 05:29 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-27 15:48 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 08:13 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-27 16:23 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-28 11:21 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-28 16:20 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-01 01:51 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-28 23:36 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-01 12:45 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-03-01 13:59 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-01 13:03 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-03-01 07:53 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 10:12 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 08:46 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 10:56 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 10:08 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 11:01 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-27 08:12 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-27 16:23 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-02-27 19:53 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 07:48 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-27 16:05 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 08:27 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 10:45 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-27 20:51 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-01 08:46 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-03-01 16:53 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-03-01 15:06 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 01:50 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-03 17:18 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 02:51 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-04 03:20 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-04 19:12 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-05 03:51 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-04 10:11 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-05 14:09 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-01 11:20 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-01 15:43 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-01 22:16 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-02 04:56 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-02 14:07 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 00:59 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-02 08:20 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-03 03:03 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-06 18:09 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-06 17:26 -0600
WITHIN (was: CASE mis-understanding?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-07 12:51 +0000
Re: WITHIN Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-07 12:13 -0800
Re: WITHIN mhx@iae.nl - 2014-03-08 05:07 -0800
Re: WITHIN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-08 15:43 +0000
Re: WITHIN mhx@iae.nl - 2014-03-08 08:23 -0800
Re: WITHIN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-08 16:37 +0000
Re: WITHIN mhx@iae.nl - 2014-03-08 10:18 -0800
Re: WITHIN mhx@iae.nl - 2014-03-08 10:48 -0800
Re: WITHIN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-08 16:02 +0000
Re: WITHIN Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-09 01:24 -0800
Re: WITHIN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-09 18:16 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-06 21:46 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-07 09:22 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-07 12:28 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-07 19:36 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-06 18:25 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-06 23:52 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-07 10:15 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-07 08:38 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-07 09:36 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-03-02 20:16 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-27 08:18 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-07 13:21 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-07 08:26 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 10:37 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-01 11:31 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-07 13:18 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-07 11:17 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-03-09 20:49 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-27 16:22 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-28 15:22 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-28 18:32 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-01 03:39 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 02:19 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-27 13:03 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-24 01:25 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-24 03:36 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-24 02:04 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 01:15 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-02-22 21:09 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 21:55 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-02-23 00:47 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 01:45 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-20 17:07 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-20 16:03 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-21 04:11 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-21 10:59 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-21 03:26 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-02-21 10:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-21 05:49 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-02-22 13:52 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-22 09:13 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-22 10:45 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-21 20:18 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-22 15:24 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-22 10:37 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-11 03:20 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-11 16:15 -0400
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-12 00:10 -0700
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-22 13:28 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-22 08:56 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-23 01:27 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-23 04:33 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 08:11 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-23 21:44 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 22:48 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 02:23 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-24 16:05 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-02-24 18:15 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-24 18:45 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-02-24 19:18 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-26 12:40 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Tristan Plumb <st@trstn.net> - 2014-02-26 15:27 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 01:31 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-04 16:30 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-05 11:48 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-22 18:28 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Gary Bergstrom <forthprgrmr@gmail.com> - 2014-02-24 08:39 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-24 21:29 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-11 00:44 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-11 00:45 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-23 04:35 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 12:31 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-18 18:19 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 11:06 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-18 12:51 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 14:40 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 08:17 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 04:48 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 13:56 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 11:15 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-18 18:24 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-19 03:46 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-21 15:52 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-22 09:10 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-18 13:09 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 15:03 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-13 15:53 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-14 00:39 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-14 06:38 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-15 15:37 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-15 13:33 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2014-02-11 10:50 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-02-11 10:57 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-11 02:35 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-11 11:47 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-11 13:08 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-11 18:42 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-12 10:54 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-12 05:31 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-12 15:52 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-12 10:41 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-13 09:27 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-13 04:49 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-13 13:54 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-03 12:26 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-07 13:41 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-02-07 01:08 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-08 09:56 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-07 12:15 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-01 00:39 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-01-31 07:29 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-04 23:45 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-31 16:31 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-03 12:35 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-03 09:32 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-08 09:31 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-08 11:22 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-03 13:54 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-31 08:40 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 22:03 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? julian.fondren@gmail.com - 2014-01-29 17:19 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2014-01-30 11:15 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-27 13:57 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-28 14:01 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-28 14:49 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-29 10:07 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-28 21:54 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-01-29 00:33 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-29 03:37 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-30 21:51 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-31 18:44 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2014-02-09 00:34 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-09 22:14 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-11 01:25 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-01-31 17:44 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-31 16:03 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-01 01:55 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-01 11:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-01 08:11 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-02 14:28 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-02 18:28 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-07 13:34 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-07 03:52 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-08 09:41 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-07 18:33 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-02-08 00:31 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-08 11:21 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-08 15:03 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-08 19:58 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-09 08:33 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-09 19:50 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-10 08:42 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-13 16:32 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-02-14 02:36 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-13 23:04 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-13 23:40 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-14 04:37 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-14 09:42 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-15 16:52 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-16 07:46 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-16 08:11 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-16 16:15 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-02-17 09:03 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-16 22:12 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-02-17 02:29 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-17 04:27 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-17 09:36 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-17 09:22 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-17 12:06 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-17 20:18 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-11 01:48 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-11 16:10 -0400
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-14 13:54 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-06 17:03 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-08 09:39 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-07 20:12 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-09 21:33 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 02:38 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 16:17 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 08:54 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-24 09:25 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 20:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-24 11:13 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-24 17:39 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 16:05 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-25 11:46 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-25 16:15 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-26 01:59 +0100
Page 17 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 21 Next page →
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-11 18:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <6qOdnSALaL8TXmfPnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28313 |
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] >>>>>>As you can see, this ends with a call followed by a return. >>>>> >>>>> AFAIK that's intentional to support return address manipulation. >>>> >>>>Sure, but that behaviour isn't required by the Forth language, >>> >>> It is required by the Forth language as supported by VFX. >> >>I suppose so; but that is not *the* Forth language. > > There is no "*the* Forth language". Heh. That's the great thing about standards: there are so many to choose from! But seriously, it's unreasonable to gainsay something said about the Forth language by saying "Version X does Y." Of course there will always be Forths that do things a standard doesn't require, and I'm not going to say *Standard* Forth every time I say anything about the language. There's probably a version of Forth somewhere with a word OR that does something other than a bitwise or; you never know what people will do. >>Anyway, this language "feature" means that VFX can't do tail call >>elimination, a very simple optimization that was available way back >>in cmFORTH. This fact casts some doubt upon your performance >>comparison. > > I am awaiting your results produced by running the program on cmForth. > >>> BTW, what may (or may not) make the IF-based variants look better than >>> the EXECUTE-based variant is that the words .LOWER etc. are inlined in >>> the IF-based variants, but not in the EXECUTE-based variant. >> >>Indeed, I have noticed that, but I think it's typical of what a >>compiler would do in real code. > > In real code .LOWER will not be just an empty definition, and even the > few compilers that inline some definitions automatically my choose not > to inline .LOWER. I have more doubts about the results because .LOWER > etc. is empty than because of how VFX deals with tail calls. But > since there is no "typical" content for these kinds of definitions, > any such benchmark will have to live with such doubts. Fair enough. It was just an example; there are many other pitfalls. The interesting thing from my point of view is that there really wasn't a huge performance spread. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-12 10:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Feb12.115454@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28319 |
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:
>>>>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> [Andrew Haley]
>>>>>>>As you can see, this ends with a call followed by a return.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AFAIK that's intentional to support return address manipulation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure, but that behaviour isn't required by the Forth language,
>>>>
>>>> It is required by the Forth language as supported by VFX.
>>>
>>>I suppose so; but that is not *the* Forth language.
>>
>> There is no "*the* Forth language".
>
>Heh. That's the great thing about standards: there are so many to
>choose from!
>
>But seriously, it's unreasonable to gainsay something said about the
>Forth language by saying "Version X does Y." Of course there will
>always be Forths that do things a standard doesn't require, and I'm
>not going to say *Standard* Forth every time I say anything about the
>language.
You could also write "standardized subset of Forth". Or, if you want
it shorter and more precise, "Forth-94", "Forth-2012" etc.
There are many Forth languages. A significant number of them are so
close to each other that they have a standardized subset that was
documented in one of the standards for Forth. A number of common
features are not documented there. That does not mean that these
features are not in "*the* Forth language", because the standard is
not "*the* Forth language". A warning example of what happens when
compiler writers see a weak standard as "*the* language" is C.
>There's probably a version of Forth somewhere with a word
>OR that does something other than a bitwise or; you never know what
>people will do.
Yes, there is, and it's from the same guy who wrote cmForth, which you
cite as authority for tail call elimination. So, if he's the leader
that we should follow, maybe we should change what OR does?
>The interesting thing from my point of view is that there really
>wasn't a huge performance spread.
I found the performance spread between the COND...WHEN variants and
the others surprising.
- 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 | 2014-02-12 05:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <CuCdnUSNEKcdxmbPnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28329 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> >>> There is no "*the* Forth language". >> >>Heh. That's the great thing about standards: there are so many to >>choose from! >> >>But seriously, it's unreasonable to gainsay something said about the >>Forth language by saying "Version X does Y." Of course there will >>always be Forths that do things a standard doesn't require, and I'm >>not going to say *Standard* Forth every time I say anything about the >>language. > > You could also write "standardized subset of Forth". Or, if you want > it shorter and more precise, "Forth-94", "Forth-2012" etc. > > There are many Forth languages. A significant number of them are so > close to each other that they have a standardized subset that was > documented in one of the standards for Forth. A number of common > features are not documented there. That does not mean that these > features are not in "*the* Forth language", because the standard is > not "*the* Forth language". When I say "X isn't required by Forth" or "by the Forth language" without qualification I mean Standard Forth, which ATM is still Forth-94. IMO this is a sensible convention, and is commonplace among people dicussing other languages. It doesn't mean I necessarily approve of any particular language feature, or even of Standard Forth itself. It's just a convention. > A warning example of what happens when compiler writers see a weak > standard as "*the* language" is C. STD_DISCLAIMER >>There's probably a version of Forth somewhere with a word OR that >>does something other than a bitwise or; you never know what people >>will do. > > Yes, there is, and it's from the same guy who wrote cmForth, which > you cite as authority for tail call elimination. No, I did not: that was not an argument from authority. I don't much care for cmFORTH. I merely noted that tail call elimination was available in that version of Forth a long time ago. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-12 15:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Feb12.165205@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28330 |
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:
>>>>
>>>> There is no "*the* Forth language".
>>>
>>>Heh. That's the great thing about standards: there are so many to
>>>choose from!
>>>
>>>But seriously, it's unreasonable to gainsay something said about the
>>>Forth language by saying "Version X does Y." Of course there will
>>>always be Forths that do things a standard doesn't require, and I'm
>>>not going to say *Standard* Forth every time I say anything about the
>>>language.
>>
>> You could also write "standardized subset of Forth". Or, if you want
>> it shorter and more precise, "Forth-94", "Forth-2012" etc.
>>
>> There are many Forth languages. A significant number of them are so
>> close to each other that they have a standardized subset that was
>> documented in one of the standards for Forth. A number of common
>> features are not documented there. That does not mean that these
>> features are not in "*the* Forth language", because the standard is
>> not "*the* Forth language".
>
>When I say "X isn't required by Forth" or "by the Forth language"
>without qualification I mean Standard Forth, which ATM is still
>Forth-94.
>
>IMO this is a sensible convention, and is commonplace among people
>dicussing other languages. It doesn't mean I necessarily approve of
>any particular language feature, or even of Standard Forth itself.
>It's just a convention.
It's not sensible when the standard does not reflect the actual usage,
and that's the case for Forth (and C). E.g., if you ask people
whether
: within ( test low high -- f )
over - >r - r> u< ;
is Forth, most will say yes, whereas your alleged "sensible
convention" says no.
>>>There's probably a version of Forth somewhere with a word OR that
>>>does something other than a bitwise or; you never know what people
>>>will do.
>>
>> Yes, there is, and it's from the same guy who wrote cmForth, which
>> you cite as authority for tail call elimination.
>
>No, I did not: that was not an argument from authority. I don't much
>care for cmFORTH. I merely noted that tail call elimination was
>available in that version of Forth a long time ago.
Yes, and OR for exclusive or is also available in some version of
Forth for some time. So?
- 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 | 2014-02-12 10:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <yLGdnUrgTIHMOWbPnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28334 |
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: >> >>When I say "X isn't required by Forth" or "by the Forth language" >>without qualification I mean Standard Forth, which ATM is still >>Forth-94. >> >>IMO this is a sensible convention, and is commonplace among people >>dicussing other languages. It doesn't mean I necessarily approve of >>any particular language feature, or even of Standard Forth itself. >>It's just a convention. > > It's not sensible when the standard does not reflect the actual usage, > and that's the case for Forth (and C). E.g., if you ask people > whether > > : within ( test low high -- f ) > over - >r - r> u< ; > > is Forth, most will say yes, whereas your alleged "sensible > convention" says no. That's fair enough: the same goes for things like zero-as-null. These are arguably things that should be fixed in the standard, but IMO the same doesn't apply to return-stack manipulation. >>>>There's probably a version of Forth somewhere with a word OR that >>>>does something other than a bitwise or; you never know what people >>>>will do. >>> >>> Yes, there is, and it's from the same guy who wrote cmForth, which >>> you cite as authority for tail call elimination. >> >>No, I did not: that was not an argument from authority. I don't much >>care for cmFORTH. I merely noted that tail call elimination was >>available in that version of Forth a long time ago. > > Yes, and OR for exclusive or is also available in some version of > Forth for some time. So? The point about mentioning that it was in cmFORTH is that it's not something that requires heroic amounts of work to optimize: it's easy to do, that even in one of the most minimal Forths. It was well-understood and well-tested a long time ago. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-13 09:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Feb13.102725@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28335 |
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:
>>>
>>>When I say "X isn't required by Forth" or "by the Forth language"
>>>without qualification I mean Standard Forth, which ATM is still
>>>Forth-94.
>>>
>>>IMO this is a sensible convention, and is commonplace among people
>>>dicussing other languages. It doesn't mean I necessarily approve of
>>>any particular language feature, or even of Standard Forth itself.
>>>It's just a convention.
>>
>> It's not sensible when the standard does not reflect the actual usage,
>> and that's the case for Forth (and C). E.g., if you ask people
>> whether
>>
>> : within ( test low high -- f )
>> over - >r - r> u< ;
>>
>> is Forth, most will say yes, whereas your alleged "sensible
>> convention" says no.
>
>That's fair enough: the same goes for things like zero-as-null. These
>are arguably things that should be fixed in the standard, but IMO the
>same doesn't apply to return-stack manipulation.
That's up for discussion. I don't see a good way to reconcile
return-address manipulation with locals, but maybe the fans of
return-address manipulation will find such a way.
But that's not my point in the discussion above. My point was that it
is not sensible to say that things that were not standardized are "not
required by *the* Forth language".
>The point about mentioning that it was in cmFORTH is that it's not
>something that requires heroic amounts of work to optimize: it's easy
>to do, that even in one of the most minimal Forths. It was
>well-understood and well-tested a long time ago.
It has also been well-understood that it breaks programs that use
return-address manipulation.
- 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 | 2014-02-13 04:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <spmdnWiqJ8K0PmHPnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28373 |
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: >>>> >>>>When I say "X isn't required by Forth" or "by the Forth language" >>>>without qualification I mean Standard Forth, which ATM is still >>>>Forth-94. >>>> >>>>IMO this is a sensible convention, and is commonplace among people >>>>dicussing other languages. It doesn't mean I necessarily approve of >>>>any particular language feature, or even of Standard Forth itself. >>>>It's just a convention. >>> >>> It's not sensible when the standard does not reflect the actual usage, >>> and that's the case for Forth (and C). E.g., if you ask people >>> whether >>> >>> : within ( test low high -- f ) >>> over - >r - r> u< ; >>> >>> is Forth, most will say yes, whereas your alleged "sensible >>> convention" says no. >> >>That's fair enough: the same goes for things like zero-as-null. These >>are arguably things that should be fixed in the standard, but IMO the >>same doesn't apply to return-stack manipulation. > > That's up for discussion. I don't see a good way to reconcile > return-address manipulation with locals, but maybe the fans of > return-address manipulation will find such a way. If they care! > But that's not my point in the discussion above. My point was that it > is not sensible to say that things that were not standardized are "not > required by *the* Forth language". Yes, I know that's the point you're making. It makes some sense, but IMO (YMMV, &c.) is not quite strong enough to be convincing. >>The point about mentioning that it was in cmFORTH is that it's not >>something that requires heroic amounts of work to optimize: it's easy >>to do, that even in one of the most minimal Forths. It was >>well-understood and well-tested a long time ago. > > It has also been well-understood that it breaks programs that use > return-address manipulation. Well, yes. But you know my opinion about that: these programs are pre-broken. But I don't know why you're making this argument again: all these points have already been made, at length. We might as well just point to previous posts. I don't think that there is anything new to say. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-13 13:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Feb13.145431@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28375 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> That's up for discussion. I don't see a good way to reconcile
>> return-address manipulation with locals, but maybe the fans of
>> return-address manipulation will find such a way.
>
>If they care!
I think there are some that care about standardization.
>But I don't know why you're making this argument again: all these
>points have already been made, at length.
And I don't know why you keep calling the standardized subset of Forth
"*the* Forth language", when just writing "Forth-94" would be much
shorter and more precise. But as long as you keep doing that, I will
keep pointing out that the standardized subset is not "*the* Forth
language".
- 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 | 2014-02-03 12:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6172e529-0560-4e8b-8503-08a4b023525f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28224 |
On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:58:31 PM UTC+1, Anton Ertl wrote:
> Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> writes:
>
>> Op Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:59:29 GMT schreef Anton Ertl:
[..]
Let's see what is at stake here ...
anew -when
: between ( c a b -- bool ) 1+ WITHIN ;
: cond ( char -- 0 char ) 0 SWAP ;
: range ( flag1 char low hi -- flag2 char ) 2 PICK >R between OR R> ;
: equal ( flag1 char val -- flag2 ) OVER >R = OR R> ;
: when ( flag char -- char ) POSTPONE TUCK POSTPONE AND POSTPONE OF ; IMMEDIATE COMPILE-ONLY
: .control ( -- ) ; \ ." Control char " ;
: .punct ( -- ) ; \ ." Punctuation " ;
: .digit ( -- ) ; \ ." Digit " ;
: .upper ( -- ) ; \ ." Upper case letter " ;
: .lower ( -- ) ; \ ." Lower case letter " ;
: .nochar ( -- ) ; \ ." Not a character " ;
: TEST1 ( char -- )
case
cond
00 $1F range
$7F equal when .control endof
cond
BL '/' range
':' '@' range
'[' &` range
'{' '~' range when .punct endof
cond '0' '9' range when .digit endof
cond 'A' 'Z' range when .upper endof
cond 'a' 'z' range when .lower endof
.nochar
endcase ;
: TEST0 ( char -- )
LOCAL c
c $7F = c $20 < OR IF .control EXIT ENDIF
c '0' '9' between IF .digit EXIT ENDIF
c 'A' 'Z' between IF .upper EXIT ENDIF
c 'a' 'z' between IF .lower EXIT ENDIF
c BL '/' between IF .punct EXIT ENDIF
c ':' '@' between IF .punct EXIT ENDIF
c '[' &` between IF .punct EXIT ENDIF
c '{' '~' between IF .punct ELSE .nochar ENDIF ;
: BENCH CR ." \ cond etc., 100,000,000 times: " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO I #255 AND TEST1 LOOP .ELAPSED
CR ." \ OF etc., 100,000,000 times: " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO I #255 AND TEST0 LOOP .ELAPSED ;
FORTH> bench
\ cond etc., 100,000,000 times: 1.799 seconds elapsed.
\ OF etc., 100,000,000 times: 0.783 seconds elapsed. ok
\ saving 1 / 1e8 = 10 ns.
So we're worrying about a possible 5 .. 10 ns savings in a word which
is supposed to do text output to the console.
-marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-07 13:41 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ld1h8m$vjk$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #28226 |
mhx@iae.nl wrote: > ... > anew -when > : between ( c a b -- bool ) 1+ WITHIN ; > : cond ( char -- 0 char ) 0 SWAP ; > : range ( flag1 char low hi -- flag2 char ) 2 PICK >R between OR R> ; > : equal ( flag1 char val -- flag2 ) OVER >R = OR R> ; > : when ( flag char -- char ) POSTPONE TUCK POSTPONE AND POSTPONE OF ; IMMEDIATE COMPILE-ONLY BTW there is a serious bug your code should anyone be intending to use it. I'll leave it to my enemies to find the bug and post the fix as they allege I don't know how CASE works. Including the fix increased the size of your run-time code. The updated stats for the disassemblies I recently posted are below. ( 603 bytes, 149 instructions ) MHX/ANS code with bug fix ( 349 bytes, 69 instructions ) Miser's Case
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-07 01:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <67611d60-3c1c-4fee-895b-32cc1540cb1a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28256 |
On Friday, February 7, 2014 3:41:45 AM UTC+1, Ed wrote: *plonk* -marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-08 09:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ld3odd$h23$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #28259 |
m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl wrote: > On Friday, February 7, 2014 3:41:45 AM UTC+1, Ed wrote: > > *plonk* > > -marcel This time you did understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-07 12:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ld2io9$p9n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28256 |
on 07/02/2014 02:41:42, "Ed" wrote: > > BTW there is a serious bug your code should anyone be intending to use > it. > > I'll leave it to my enemies to find the bug and post the fix as they > allege I don't know how CASE works. O dear. This isn't about standards like ANS or CASE or any number of Forth issues. This is about your intense dislike for people who don't agree with you. How sad and wasteful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-01 00:39 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lcg97s$iv2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #28171 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes: > > ... > >The above demonstrates the limitation of ANS CASE. Because it doesn't cater > >for more than one case per block, it must be simulated. It does this by testing > >each case and OR'ing the results - a slow and cumbersome process. There's > >no advantage ordering the cases (for speed) because all must be tested. > > No, once a test succeeds, the following OFs are not tested. > ... You are implying I said such a thing. Show where I said it, or retract your statement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-31 07:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bb6a7145-4ba9-495a-824b-84077d4bd88d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28180 |
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:39:00 PM UTC+1, Ed wrote: > Anton Ertl wrote: > "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes: >> ... >>The above demonstrates the limitation of ANS CASE. Because it doesn't cater >>for more than one case per block, it must be simulated. It does this by >> testing each case and OR'ing the results - a slow and cumbersome process. >> There's no advantage ordering the cases (for speed) because all must be >> tested. No, once a test succeeds, the following OFs are not tested. > ... You are implying I said such a thing. Show where I said it, or > retract your statement. I also thought you were saying that, so it won't hurt to clarify your position if you are sensitive about what people think (in this case). -marcel -marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-04 23:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lcqnh9$rrg$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #28183 |
m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl wrote:
> On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:39:00 PM UTC+1, Ed wrote:
> > Anton Ertl wrote: > "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
> >> ...
> >>The above demonstrates the limitation of ANS CASE. Because it doesn't cater
> >>for more than one case per block, it must be simulated. It does this by
> >> testing each case and OR'ing the results - a slow and cumbersome process.
> >> There's no advantage ordering the cases (for speed) because all must be
> >> tested. No, once a test succeeds, the following OFs are not tested.
> > ... You are implying I said such a thing. Show where I said it, or
> > retract your statement.
>
> I also thought you were saying that, so it won't hurt to
> clarify your position if you are sensitive about what people
> think (in this case).
Let's see if I have it straight ...
1) You wrote a CASE routine which uses OR to sum the results of an
arbitrary number of comparisons.
2) I posted the following test.
: TEST ( n ) case
cond 1 equal 3 equal 5 equal 7 equal 9 equal when ." Selected"
else ." Not in range" endcase ;
3) I showed you (and anyone else who cared to look) a disassembly which
shows each value in the list being compared against the selector and the
results OR'd together.
3) I pointed out this OR'ing is inefficient.
4) You responded saying your implementation wasn't designed for speed.
5) Now you claim I was talking about something else.
Seriously?
You wrote the code. You would know better than anyone how it works
and where any inefficiencies might lie. You can explain it to Anton and
Elizabeth as they profess ignorance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-31 16:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jan31.173144@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28180 |
"Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
>> > ...
>> >The above demonstrates the limitation of ANS CASE. Because it doesn't cater
>> >for more than one case per block, it must be simulated. It does this by testing
>> >each case and OR'ing the results - a slow and cumbersome process. There's
>> >no advantage ordering the cases (for speed) because all must be tested.
>>
>> No, once a test succeeds, the following OFs are not tested.
>> ...
>
>You are implying I said such a thing. Show where I said it, or retract your
>statement.
I quoted what you wrote, and what I was referring to. In particular I
referred to the last sentence.
- 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 | 2014-02-03 12:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lcmrsd$vqb$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #28186 |
Anton Ertl wrote:
> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
> >Anton Ertl wrote:
> >> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
> >> > ...
> >> >The above demonstrates the limitation of ANS CASE. Because it doesn't cater
> >> >for more than one case per block, it must be simulated. It does this by testing
> >> >each case and OR'ing the results - a slow and cumbersome process. There's
> >> >no advantage ordering the cases (for speed) because all must be tested.
> >>
> >> No, once a test succeeds, the following OFs are not tested.
> >> ...
> >
> >You are implying I said such a thing. Show where I said it, or retract your
> >statement.
>
> I quoted what you wrote, and what I was referring to. In particular I
> referred to the last sentence.
You took a sentence out of context for your own ends, ignoring what was
said immediately before it and omitting the detailed explanation which
followed it.
My posts are aimed at serious folk who are prepared to think. I stopped
reading your posts and those of some others long ago. I have no interest
in exploitative exhibits of self-inflation such as the one above or the one
below:
Anton Ertl wrote:
> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
> >Put the buggy routine through the Hayes tester and watch it pass.
>
> Most people already know this, but just in case you don't:
>
> "Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never
> to show their absence!"
>
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra
I have no problem staying away from you. OTOH you seem incapable of
staying away from me. Why exactly is that? I distinctly recall you stating
some time ago that you would refrain from bothering me.
Don't read my posts if they bother you. Don't use my posts to further
yourself. I'm not responsible for your boredom. You are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-03 09:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lcnnnl$79h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28211 |
on 03/02/2014 01:35:45, "Ed" wrote: > Anton Ertl wrote: >> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes: >> >Anton Ertl wrote: >> >> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes: >> >> > ... >> >> >The above demonstrates the limitation of ANS CASE. Because it doesn't cater >> >> >for more than one case per block, it must be simulated. It does this by testing >> >> >each case and OR'ing the results - a slow and cumbersome process. There's >> >> >no advantage ordering the cases (for speed) because all must be tested. >> >> >> >> No, once a test succeeds, the following OFs are not tested. >> >> ... >> > >> >You are implying I said such a thing. Show where I said it, or retract your >> >statement. >> >> I quoted what you wrote, and what I was referring to. In particular I >> referred to the last sentence. > > You took a sentence out of context for your own ends, ignoring what > was said immediately before it and omitting the detailed explanation > which followed it. > > My posts are aimed at serious folk who are prepared to think. I How are we to know who it is that you think you are addressing? > stopped reading your posts and those of some others long ago. I have > no interest in exploitative exhibits of self-inflation such as the one > above or the one below: > > Anton Ertl wrote: > > "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes: > > >Put the buggy routine through the Hayes tester and watch it pass. > > > > Most people already know this, but just in case you don't: > > > > "Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never > > to show their absence!" > > > http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra > > I have no problem staying away from you. OTOH you seem incapable of > staying away from me. Why exactly is that? I distinctly recall you > stating some time ago that you would refrain from bothering me. > > Don't read my posts if they bother you. Don't use my posts to further > yourself. I'm not responsible for your boredom. You are. > > > You shouldn't partake in public fora if the public response bothers you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-08 09:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ld3muk$d8f$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #28216 |
Alex McDonald wrote: > ... > You shouldn't partake in public fora if the public response bothers you. You and Anton do not constitute a public response though there may be others. I will not be blackmailed and bullied by deluded characters who are under the impression they are free to pursue and harass individuals to the point where they can no longer post on a forum in peace and are forced to leave. Forums are not venues for exploitation, though you two appear to think so. No-one has the right to force themselves upon another, or to ignore instructions to be left alone. As you failed to heed my previous post and instruction to get out of my face and stay the hell away from me, I trust this one leaves no room for doubt. Just to make it absolutely clear, this applies to both of you and anyone else with ideas of making trouble.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web