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 11 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 21 Next page →
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-05 03:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <stKdna1By6w4bovOnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28917 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >> Yes, of course he did. Your WITHIN is broken. Come on, we've been >> over all of this already. > > Yes of course it's broken. I was asking what Bernd was getting at > about SWAP WITHIN. The obvious interpretation led to the broken > WITHIN that I posted. So I'm still missing something. My problem is that I don't know what you're not getting. We want a WITHIN that works with signed and unsigned integers and elements of the set of integers modulo N. Clearly, the WITHIN that we have is the only one that fits these requirements. Yes? So what is it that you don't get? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-04 10:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Mar5.113533@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28893 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> A is within B C, but if you count the angle counter-clockwise
>>> instead of clockwise it suddenly isn't.
>>
>> I don't know what clockwise has to do with any of this. It works
>> equally well in both directions: which direction (clockwise or
>> anticlockwise) is counted as increasing is just a convention.
>
>The point here is probably that B < C in the clockwise case, and in the
>counter-clockwise case, it's B > C. However SWAP WITHIN is as good as
>WITHIN INVERT.
Not in all cases:
3 3 3 swap within . 0 ok
3 3 3 within invert . -1 ok
The good thing for the circle example is that we can check for an
angle of 0 degrees (with WITHIN), as well as for an angle of 360
degrees (with WITHIN INVERT); we cannot do both at the same time,
though.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-05 14:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lf77mc$lsj$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #28921 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >>The point here is probably that B < C in the clockwise case, and in the >>counter-clockwise case, it's B > C. However SWAP WITHIN is as good as >>WITHIN INVERT. > > Not in all cases: > > 3 3 3 swap within . 0 ok > 3 3 3 within invert . -1 ok Ok, to be more precise: For all a<>b, x a b within = x b a within invert (provable). : within ( x a b -- flag ) over - >r - r> u< ; As we use start len constructs quite often (e.g. strings) in Forth, something like : inside? ( x start len -- flag ) >r - r> u< ; would be a useful word, too. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-01 11:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xha7hiv3w.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #28810 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > Consider a robot arm (or indeed a phasor) that has to be kept within > lower and upper limits as it rotates: WITHIN is what you need. If you know the lower and upper limits ahead of time, why do you need the wraparound in WITHIN? To get WITHIN(x,a,b) you can just check if x is in the interval [a,b) where a is the smaller endpoint and b is the larger one, using ordinary comparisons and no arithmetic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-01 15:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <CLGdnfOUcLjxyY_OnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28848 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >> Consider a robot arm (or indeed a phasor) that has to be kept within >> lower and upper limits as it rotates: WITHIN is what you need. > > If you know the lower and upper limits ahead of time, Who said you did? I certainly didn't. It's more likely that the limits are rotating. > why do you need the wraparound in WITHIN? To get WITHIN(x,a,b) you > can just check if x is in the interval [a,b) where a is the smaller > endpoint and b is the larger one, using ordinary comparisons and no > arithmetic. So what's the advantage of that, then? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-01 22:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xr46lruq1.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #28851 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >> If you know the lower and upper limits ahead of time, > Who said you did? I certainly didn't. It's more likely that the > limits are rotating. Both limits rotating at the same speed, i.e. they are separated by a fixed angle w? So you want x in [a,a+w) which means (unsigned comparison) x-a < w, saving a subtraction compared to the [a,b) version of WITHIN. >> can just check if x is in the interval [a,b) > So what's the advantage of that, then? It turns two subtractions and a comparison into two comparisons and an AND. Probably no faster for fixed-sized integers. Might be faster for some other types. It's also more generic since the datatype doesn't have to support arithmetic, though I'm not sure of a use case for that. Maybe an alphabetized rolodex or something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 04:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o8ednawHAOPUk47OnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28854 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>> If you know the lower and upper limits ahead of time, >> Who said you did? I certainly didn't. It's more likely that the >> limits are rotating. > > Both limits rotating at the same speed, Quite possibly. > i.e. they are separated by a fixed angle w? So you want x in > [a,a+w) which means (unsigned comparison) x-a < w, saving a > subtraction compared to the [a,b) version of WITHIN. OK, but this is just an observation that an optimizing compiler can reorganize an expression with constants, or an optimizing programmer can do the same thing. But we already know that, so I can't figure out what your point might be. >>> can just check if x is in the interval [a,b) >> So what's the advantage of that, then? > > It turns two subtractions and a comparison into two comparisons and > an AND. Probably no faster for fixed-sized integers. It might be slower; but in any case it's not obvious to me that there's an advantage. > Might be faster for some other types. We're talking about Forth's WITHIN , which is (in effect) defined as an operator on the ring of integers mod N. WITHIN is not defined on other types. I don't know if anyone has ever defined WITHIN as a circular relational on, say, floating-point numbers; it might make more sense to define it simply as lo < x <= hi. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 14:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <53133b33$0$25260$e4fe514c@dreader34.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #28859 |
In article <o8ednawHAOPUk47OnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@supernews.com>, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>>> If you know the lower and upper limits ahead of time, >>> Who said you did? I certainly didn't. It's more likely that the >>> limits are rotating. >> >> Both limits rotating at the same speed, > >Quite possibly. > >> i.e. they are separated by a fixed angle w? So you want x in >> [a,a+w) which means (unsigned comparison) x-a < w, saving a >> subtraction compared to the [a,b) version of WITHIN. > >OK, but this is just an observation that an optimizing compiler can >reorganize an expression with constants, or an optimizing programmer >can do the same thing. But we already know that, so I can't figure >out what your point might be. > >>>> can just check if x is in the interval [a,b) >>> So what's the advantage of that, then? >> >> It turns two subtractions and a comparison into two comparisons and >> an AND. Probably no faster for fixed-sized integers. > >It might be slower; but in any case it's not obvious to me that >there's an advantage. > >> Might be faster for some other types. > >We're talking about Forth's WITHIN , which is (in effect) defined as >an operator on the ring of integers mod N. WITHIN is not defined on >other types. I don't know if anyone has ever defined WITHIN as a >circular relational on, say, floating-point numbers; it might make >more sense to define it simply as lo < x <= hi. The tricky thing about WITHIN is that it is not just an unsigned operator. It works perfectly well on signed numbers too. " -1 1 RSHIFT CONSTANT MAX-INT MAX-INT : ISN'T UNIQUE OK MAX-INT . 9223372036854775807 OK MAX-INT NEGATE . -9223372036854775807 OK -9000000000000000000 MAX-INT NEGATE MAX-INT WITHIN . -1 OK +9000000000000000000 MAX-INT NEGATE MAX-INT WITHIN . -1 OK " That is why the standard says: " ambiguous condition ... not of same type ... " (same type: all three must be considered unsigned, or considered signed.) Newbies do well to have a mental picture of WITHIN-signed and WITHIN-unsigned and forget that they happen to have the same implementation. > >Andrew. Groetjes Albert Sorry about the colossal numbers. I was too lazy to find a 32 bit Forth. -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-03 00:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <405ccecb-313c-4023-a965-6e12cb909499@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28861 |
That's good advice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 08:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7x7g8cvagd.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #28859 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>> So you want x in [a,a+w) which means (unsigned comparison) x-a < w
> OK, but this is just an observation that an optimizing compiler can
> reorganize an expression with constants..., so I can't figure
> out what your point might be.
Just that I still haven't yet seen a use case for WITHIN being written
the way it is. The robot example with fixed w could be done more
efficiently.
I just grepped for WITHIN in the 80 KLOC or so of Forth code in the 4th
distro. I found 20 calls to WITHIN of which:
16 had obvious small constant bounds, mostly 1 and 9 (in startrek.4th)
2 had bounds retrieved from tables of constants, wraparound not used
1 (tcs.4th) also appears to not use wraparound but I may be missing something
1 is the definition of BETWEEN as
: BETWEEN 1+ WITHIN ;
in range.4th -- which I think is slightly wrong per
http://www.netbay.com.au/~dxforth/between.html (posted by Rod
Pemberton). Another example of wraparound arithmetic causing
potential bugs.
I also looked for calls to BETWEEN and the situation looked basically
similar though there was one that I didn't try to figure out (savefile.4th).
> I don't know if anyone has ever defined WITHIN as a circular
> relational on, say, floating-point numbers
You'd use the circular version to test membership in an interval on the
projective reals. This might be useful for interval arithmetic--I'm not
sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-03 03:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <KYmdnW2ZKqjp2InOnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28862 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>> So you want x in [a,a+w) which means (unsigned comparison) x-a < w >> OK, but this is just an observation that an optimizing compiler can >> reorganize an expression with constants..., so I can't figure >> out what your point might be. > > Just that I still haven't yet seen a use case for WITHIN being > written the way it is. How else would you write WITHIN ? It has to work eveywhere on the number circle. Any other way that you might write it breaks at some point unless you use that algorithm. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-06 18:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Mar6.190908@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28867 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>> So you want x in [a,a+w) which means (unsigned comparison) x-a < w
>>> OK, but this is just an observation that an optimizing compiler can
>>> reorganize an expression with constants..., so I can't figure
>>> out what your point might be.
>>
>> Just that I still haven't yet seen a use case for WITHIN being
>> written the way it is.
>
>How else would you write WITHIN ? It has to work eveywhere on the
>number circle. Any other way that you might write it breaks at some
>point unless you use that algorithm.
I believe that the way that is specified in the standard works
circularly, whether you use signed or unsigned comparison (or any
other comparison that cuts the circle apart at a consistent point).
It's still grossly inefficient and hard to understand, especially that
it works that way.
- 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 | 2014-03-06 17:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <TYqdnSjeJcmsmYTOnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28936 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>>>> So you want x in [a,a+w) which means (unsigned comparison) x-a < w >>>> OK, but this is just an observation that an optimizing compiler can >>>> reorganize an expression with constants..., so I can't figure >>>> out what your point might be. >>> >>> Just that I still haven't yet seen a use case for WITHIN being >>> written the way it is. >> >>How else would you write WITHIN ? It has to work eveywhere on the >>number circle. Any other way that you might write it breaks at some >>point unless you use that algorithm. > > I believe that the way that is specified in the standard works > circularly, whether you use signed or unsigned comparison (or any > other comparison that cuts the circle apart at a consistent point). > It's still grossly inefficient and hard to understand, especially that > it works that way. Sorry, what is grossly inefficient? And when compared with what? You're not saying that WITHIN is inefficient, are you? That makes no sense. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-07 12:51 +0000 |
| Subject | WITHIN (was: CASE mis-understanding?) |
| Message-ID | <2014Mar7.135132@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28938 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>How else would you write WITHIN ? It has to work eveywhere on the
>>>number circle. Any other way that you might write it breaks at some
>>>point unless you use that algorithm.
>>
>> I believe that the way that is specified in the standard works
>> circularly, whether you use signed or unsigned comparison (or any
>> other comparison that cuts the circle apart at a consistent point).
>> It's still grossly inefficient and hard to understand, especially that
>> it works that way.
>
>Sorry, what is grossly inefficient?
An implementation that follows the wording of the standard, and that
does not use wraparound arithmetics:
: within { n1 n2 n3 -- f }
n2 n3 < n2 n1 <= n1 n3 < and and
n2 n3 > n2 n1 <= n1 n3 < or and or ;
> And when compared with what?
The usual implementation that relies on wraparound arithmetics:
: WITHIN ( test low high -- flag ) OVER - >R - R> U< ;
- 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 | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-07 12:13 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: WITHIN |
| Message-ID | <7x7g85him2.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #28953 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>>> It's still grossly inefficient and hard to understand, especially that
>>> it works that way. ...
> : within { n1 n2 n3 -- f }
> n2 n3 < n2 n1 <= n1 n3 < and and
> n2 n3 > n2 n1 <= n1 n3 < or and or ;
IMHO it would be easier to understand (though even more inefficient)
with a bit of factoring:
: endpoints { n a b -- a<=n n<b } a n <= n b < ;
: outside ( n a b -- flag ) endpoints or ; \ precondition: a > b
: inside ( n a b -- flag ) endpoints and ; \ precondition: a <= b
: within ( n a b -- flag ) 2dup <= if inside else outside then ;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mhx@iae.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-08 05:07 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: WITHIN |
| Message-ID | <a9892404-1183-4a45-9980-a3cb3fa24c81@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28967 |
On Friday, March 7, 2014 9:13:57 PM UTC+1, Paul Rubin wrote:
> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
[..]
Your Forth is improving. Try this :-)
-marcel
--- ------------------------------------------------------------------
ANEW -within
: endpoints ( n a b -- a<=n n<b ) params| n a b | a n <= n b < ;
: outside ( n a b -- flag ) endpoints or ; \ precondition: a > b
: inside ( n a b -- flag ) endpoints and ; \ precondition: a <= b
: within1 ( n a b -- flag ) 2dup <= if inside else outside then ;
: within2 ( n a b -- flag )
params| n a b |
a b <= if a n <= n b < and
else a n <= n b < or
then ;
: within3 ( n a b -- flag ) params| n a b | a n <= n b < a b <= if and else or then ;
: within4 ( n a b -- flag ) params| n a b | a n <= n b < 2dup and -rot or a b <= if drop else nip then ;
: within5 ( n a b -- flag ) params| n a b | a b > >R
a n <= n b < and a n <= n b < or and
a n <= n b < and a n <= n b < or xor
R> and or ;
DOC
(*
x = a&b y = a|b
x y c=1 -> x
x y c=0 -> y
x y c out
=========
0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 1 0 1
0 1 1 0 ~c & xor(x,y) = a b and a b or xor c invert and
1 0 0 1
1 0 1 0
1 1 0 1 \ x&y => a b and a b or and
1 1 1 1 /
*)
ENDDOC
: within6 ( n a b -- flag ) 2DUP > >R ( n a b ) ROT TUCK ( a n b n ) >= >R <= >S
S R@ and S R@ or and
S R@ and S> R> or xor R> and or ;
: (test) ( a b c xt ) >R 3dup WITHIN >S R> EXECUTE S> <> ABORT" wrong" ;
: TEST-W ( xt -- ) LOCAL xt
0 2 8 xt (test) 10 2 8 xt (test) 6 2 8 xt (test)
0 8 2 xt (test) 10 8 2 xt (test) 6 8 2 xt (test) ;
' within1 TEST-W
' within2 TEST-W
' within3 TEST-W
' within4 TEST-W
' within5 TEST-W
' within6 TEST-W
: BENCH CR ." \ WITHIN : " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP LOOP .ELAPSED
CR ." \ WITHIN1 : " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED
CR ." \ WITHIN2 : " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED
CR ." \ WITHIN3 : " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED
CR ." \ WITHIN4 : " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED
CR ." \ WITHIN5 : " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED
CR ." \ WITHIN6 : " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED ;
FORTH> bench
\ WITHIN : 0.208 seconds elapsed.
\ WITHIN1 : 0.237 seconds elapsed.
\ WITHIN2 : 0.409 seconds elapsed.
\ WITHIN3 : 0.405 seconds elapsed.
\ WITHIN4 : 0.374 seconds elapsed.
\ WITHIN5 : 0.679 seconds elapsed.
\ WITHIN6 : 0.345 seconds elapsed. ok
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-08 15:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: WITHIN |
| Message-ID | <2014Mar8.164345@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28978 |
mhx@iae.nl writes:
>On Friday, March 7, 2014 9:13:57 PM UTC+1, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>[..]
>
>Your Forth is improving. Try this :-)
>
>-marcel
>
>--- ------------------------------------------------------------------
>ANEW -within
>
>: endpoints ( n a b -- a<=n n<b ) params| n a b | a n <= n b < ;
>: outside ( n a b -- flag ) endpoints or ; \ precondition: a > b
>: inside ( n a b -- flag ) endpoints and ; \ precondition: a <= b
>: within1 ( n a b -- flag ) 2dup <= if inside else outside then ;
>
>: within2 ( n a b -- flag )
> params| n a b |
> a b <= if a n <= n b < and
> else a n <= n b < or
> then ;
>
>: within3 ( n a b -- flag ) params| n a b | a n <= n b < a b <= if and else or then ;
>: within4 ( n a b -- flag ) params| n a b | a n <= n b < 2dup and -rot or a b <= if drop else nip then ;
>
>: within5 ( n a b -- flag ) params| n a b | a b > >R
> a n <= n b < and a n <= n b < or and
> a n <= n b < and a n <= n b < or xor
> R> and or ;
>
>DOC
>(*
> x = a&b y = a|b
> x y c=1 -> x
> x y c=0 -> y
>
> x y c out
> =========
> 0 0 0 0
> 0 0 1 0
> 0 1 0 1
> 0 1 1 0 ~c & xor(x,y) = a b and a b or xor c invert and
> 1 0 0 1
> 1 0 1 0
> 1 1 0 1 \ x&y => a b and a b or and
> 1 1 1 1 /
>
>*)
>ENDDOC
>
>: within6 ( n a b -- flag ) 2DUP > >R ( n a b ) ROT TUCK ( a n b n ) >= >R <= >S
> S R@ and S R@ or and
> S R@ and S> R> or xor R> and or ;
You could also try
: within7 { n1 n2 n3 -- f }
\ direct from the spec
n2 n3 < n2 n1 <= n1 n3 < and and
n2 n3 > n2 n1 <= n1 n3 < or and or ;
: within8 { n a b -- f }
\ ANSI C-ish: does not use overflow, but uses arithmetic on flags.
a b > a n <= n b < + + -2 = ;
: within9 { n a b -- f }
\ proper WITHIN, implemented with locals
n a - b a - u< ;
: withina ( n a b -- f )
\ purist's proper WITHIN
over - >r - r> u< ;
The latter two are to check whether your WITHIN does better than one
written in high-level, and how much of a slowdown locals produce on
the measured Forth system (ideally none).
- 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 | 2014-03-08 08:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: WITHIN |
| Message-ID | <434b4f01-4c7c-4c59-b112-9d6c0c01151c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28981 |
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 4:43:45 PM UTC+1, Anton Ertl wrote: > mhx@iae.nl writes: > >On Friday, March 7, 2014 9:13:57 PM UTC+1, Paul Rubin wrote: > >> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: [..] > The latter two are to check whether your WITHIN does better than one > written in high-level, and how much of a slowdown locals produce on > the measured Forth system (ideally none). FORTH> bench \ WITHIN : 0.201 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN1 : 0.239 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN2 : 0.420 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN3 : 0.410 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN4 : 0.380 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN5 : 0.689 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN6 : 0.347 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN7 : 0.474 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN8 : 0.293 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN9 : 0.192 seconds elapsed. \ WITHINA : 0.191 seconds elapsed. ok The difference between WITHIN and WITHIN9/a is consistent. For read-only locals in simple definitions one uses iForth's PARAMS| (they have your preferred stack order). -marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-08 16:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: WITHIN |
| Message-ID | <2014Mar8.173724@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28978 |
mhx@iae.nl writes:
>: BENCH CR ." \ WITHIN : " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP LOOP .ELAPSED
> CR ." \ WITHIN1 : " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED
> CR ." \ WITHIN2 : " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED
> CR ." \ WITHIN3 : " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED
> CR ." \ WITHIN4 : " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED
> CR ." \ WITHIN5 : " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED
> CR ." \ WITHIN6 : " TIMER-RESET #100000000 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED ;
Note that constant parameters are the best case for the branch
predictor (but if the only branch depends on the comparison of a and
b, and WITHIN is inlined, the avarage case is probably very close to
the best case). Random inputs should produce a worst case (50%
mispredictions).
- 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 | 2014-03-08 10:18 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: WITHIN |
| Message-ID | <aed579ad-b6fd-41b2-8eb0-d02d24de3344@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28984 |
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 5:37:24 PM UTC+1, Anton Ertl wrote: > mhx@iae.nl writes: [..] I am afraid that this will be both difficult to read and to understand :-) Another tip-of-the-hat to Intel/AMD's hardware engineers. -marcel #10000000 =: size [DEFINED] addr [IF] addr FREE ?ALLOCATE [THEN] size ALLOCATE ?ALLOCATE =: addr :NONAME ( -- ) size 0 DO #10 CHOOSE addr I + C! LOOP ; EXECUTE : x ( ix -- u ) addr + C@ ; : BENCH1 CR ." \ *** fixed data bench ***" CR ." \ DUMMY : " TIMER-RESET size 0 DO LOOP DUP .ELAPSED LOCAL o CR ." \ WITHIN : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN1 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN2 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN3 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN4 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN5 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN6 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN7 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN8 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN9 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHINA : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP LOOP .ELAPSED ; : BENCH2 CR ." \ *** randomized bench ***" CR ." \ DUMMY : " TIMER-RESET size 0 DO LOOP DUP .ELAPSED LOCAL o CR ." \ WITHIN : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN1 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN2 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN3 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN4 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN5 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN6 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN7 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN8 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN9 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHINA : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP LOOP .ELAPSED ; \ *** fixed data bench *** \ DUMMY : 0.033 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN : 0.129 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN1 : 0.267 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN2 : 0.306 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN3 : 0.387 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN4 : 0.330 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN5 : 0.687 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN6 : 0.308 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN7 : 0.491 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN8 : 0.294 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN9 : 0.126 seconds elapsed. \ WITHINA : 0.126 seconds elapsed. \ *** randomized bench *** \ DUMMY : 0.019 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN : 0.095 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN1 : 0.245 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN2 : 0.353 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN3 : 0.342 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN4 : 0.323 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN5 : 0.614 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN6 : 0.311 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN7 : 0.427 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN8 : 0.295 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN9 : 0.092 seconds elapsed. \ WITHINA : 0.095 seconds elapsed. ok
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web