Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #35035 > unrolled thread
| Started by | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-12-19 15:59 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-12-23 15:16 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 340 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-19 15:59 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-20 08:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-20 03:40 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-20 13:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-21 04:38 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-21 21:38 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-21 16:32 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-22 03:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mhx@iae.nl - 2014-12-22 00:53 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-22 13:43 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 02:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 03:38 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 02:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-22 11:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-22 07:51 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-22 15:59 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-23 11:17 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 02:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 06:09 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-23 12:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 13:12 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 07:57 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-23 10:31 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 12:27 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-23 15:04 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 19:28 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-25 02:43 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-25 20:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 11:43 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-25 20:40 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 13:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-12-26 11:40 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-05 19:33 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-05 21:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-05 21:33 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-06 10:24 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 10:13 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-07 00:41 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 14:59 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-06 11:53 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 10:16 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 18:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 12:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 18:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-12-25 12:46 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 14:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-12-27 09:48 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 12:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-29 13:08 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 20:13 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 20:21 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 12:39 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-23 15:16 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 17:40 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-24 05:34 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 21:12 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-24 12:40 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 09:40 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 08:52 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 09:18 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 11:14 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-24 12:53 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 09:15 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 12:07 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 11:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-24 03:26 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-25 19:45 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-24 05:31 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-24 03:28 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-24 11:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 22:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 14:27 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 22:58 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 15:38 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 02:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 19:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 06:30 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 22:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 07:15 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 23:32 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 10:39 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 10:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 01:21 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 09:06 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 09:39 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 21:15 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-25 23:34 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 17:09 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 02:22 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 17:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 05:22 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 14:00 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 16:13 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-27 09:50 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-27 04:41 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-27 10:21 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-30 11:50 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-31 15:02 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-26 03:28 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-26 10:35 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-26 14:54 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-26 16:36 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-26 21:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-27 10:17 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 12:09 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-01 21:07 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-02 11:42 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-01-02 12:45 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-02 23:42 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 14:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-06 03:51 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-05 20:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-05 19:25 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 14:52 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 08:04 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-08 21:14 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 16:25 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-09 09:10 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 14:35 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-10 20:51 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 11:29 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 03:46 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 15:58 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 23:01 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 16:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-11 16:50 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 08:53 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-12 08:28 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-12 11:10 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-01-11 11:30 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 16:56 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 19:47 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 08:03 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 23:44 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 09:05 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-12 10:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-31 10:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-01-09 23:01 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 14:43 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 23:45 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 09:09 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 10:52 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 15:31 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-05 23:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-05 22:22 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 08:41 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 10:30 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 13:37 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 13:02 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 15:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-07 01:15 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 15:23 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 19:25 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 17:52 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 21:15 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 19:30 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-07 05:07 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-07 15:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-07 12:41 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-07 11:09 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 08:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-07 11:52 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 14:14 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-09 20:04 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-10 20:57 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 08:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-11 19:59 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 22:51 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-15 22:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-16 08:56 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 01:54 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-01-07 12:33 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-07 14:25 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-07 16:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 15:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 06:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 08:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 10:06 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-07 18:09 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 10:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 16:48 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-08 16:25 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-08 08:50 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mhx@iae.nl - 2015-01-07 10:37 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-08 16:32 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 18:28 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 07:31 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 16:24 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-08 14:02 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 09:26 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-08 17:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 11:01 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-07 17:18 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 09:44 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-08 09:31 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 03:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 15:21 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 18:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-08 09:40 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-08 14:49 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-08 17:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-06 04:42 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 08:13 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-09 02:52 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-08 18:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 20:29 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-08 21:30 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 11:14 -0800
Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-09 22:18 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-10 03:15 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 20:56 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-12 03:02 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-12 10:14 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-10 11:39 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-13 18:08 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 20:04 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-14 02:43 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-14 13:34 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 02:03 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-15 12:03 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 06:47 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-10 19:15 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-10 12:52 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-10 19:05 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-11 09:28 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-11 14:45 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 18:28 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-12 17:12 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 20:55 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 03:48 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 06:05 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 06:34 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 06:51 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 08:03 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 19:18 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 08:26 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 09:54 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-13 17:35 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 18:19 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-14 21:03 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-14 21:07 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 01:06 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-15 00:52 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 01:17 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-15 17:35 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 20:38 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-16 10:47 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-16 20:47 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-01-16 14:37 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-01-16 17:26 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-17 03:03 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-13 10:40 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 19:04 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 23:24 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-09 18:09 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 09:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-09 11:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-09 22:38 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-16 13:44 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-17 02:39 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-17 13:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-17 18:44 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-18 12:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-18 22:48 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-19 03:10 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-18 18:41 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-17 11:45 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-17 17:57 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-18 14:57 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-01-19 00:49 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-19 15:04 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! beeflo <beeflobill@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 16:24 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-20 03:26 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-01-20 04:23 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-23 21:42 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 20:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-20 07:10 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-20 12:04 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-20 16:11 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 20:40 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-01-20 23:29 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 20:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-21 01:55 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-22 00:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 07:42 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-06 09:50 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-06 04:38 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 21:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-09 23:28 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "hughaguilar96@yahoo.com" <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 11:10 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 00:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-12 22:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 17:33 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 19:17 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 21:06 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 04:08 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-13 15:00 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 18:45 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 21:12 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 20:41 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-21 20:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-21 23:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-26 20:20 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2015-01-05 10:31 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-27 07:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 13:08 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-27 10:54 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-27 11:01 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-27 21:25 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-29 05:20 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-04 11:53 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mhx@iae.nl - 2015-01-04 05:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-01-04 08:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-12-26 15:00 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 13:35 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 10:55 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 07:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 23:27 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 10:34 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 09:47 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 19:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 11:00 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 12:01 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 16:03 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 17:20 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2014-12-26 21:53 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-08 22:30 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-25 20:00 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 08:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-25 19:36 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-05 19:09 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-23 15:35 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-05 19:16 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-08 15:51 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-21 16:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-22 10:51 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-12-22 05:47 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-22 09:10 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-22 15:23 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-23 15:16 +0000
Page 15 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 Next page →
| From | Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-20 23:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20150120232959.7ca42eab@T60A> |
| In reply to | #35917 |
On 20 Jan 2015 12:04:25 GMT albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote: > > I've been thinking about using a Forth assembler (post-it fixup) > as the backend of the c-compiler, as a start to forthify > the gnu c-compiler. Shouldn't be too hard and a fun project. Is the zylin-zpu close or relevant? zylin-zpu@zylin.com Only has one stack, but has a gcc backend. Jan Coombs. -- email valid, else fix dots and hyphen jan4clf2014@murrayhyphenmicroftdotcodotuk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-20 20:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c4fd715e-67fa-492d-beac-1086e927b1a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35901 |
On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 8:32:42 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > Gforth runs on > a large variety of architectures; if the engine was written in IA-32 > assembly language, it would run only on IA-32. On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 8:32:42 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > Gforth runs on > a large variety of architectures; if the engine was written in IA-32 > assembly language, it would run only on IA-32. I never said 32-bit x86 --- that is obsolete --- essentially all desktop-computers are 64-bit x86. There is really nothing else that has to be targeted to cover the desktop-computer world. There are a variety of micro-controllers. If you write the micro-controller version in ARM-Cortex though, then you have covered about 95% of the micro-controller world. Your current Gforth is no good for ANY micro-controller however, so targeting one micro-controller (ARM-Cortex) would be infinitely better than targeting zero micro-controllers which is what you are doing currently. I wrote MFX for the MiniForth 20 years ago, and the MiniForth was used in the motion-control board for a laser-etcher. Even now, 20 years later, Gforth is not even close to this kind of performance on ANY micro-controller including the big 32-bit ones such as the ARM-Cortex. Gforth is a complete failure in the micro-controller world --- and micro-controllers are supposed to be Forth's bailiwick. Your use of GCC is predicated on the assumption that it is easier to port C to a new processor than to port Forth --- this is contrary to what was believed in the FIG days: that it is easier to port Forth to a new processor. If some new processor were to come out, you have to just hope that the GCC programmers want to support it, and you have to just patiently wait until they finish their work --- that is pathetic --- it is a good thing that Testra didn't hire you to write the development system for the MiniForth processor, or 20 years later you would still be patiently waiting for the GCC programmers to decide that the MiniForth is important enough for them to support (and they never will, because it is is a bad target for C due to lacking a C-style stack-frame). > Some may believe that a threaded-code engine written in assembly > language would have led to better performance than that exhibited by > Gforth. However, looking at > <http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/performance.html>, Gforth > 0.4.9 performed faster than any of the threaded-code Forth systems > written in assembly language (Win32Forth, NT Forth, and eforth) on all > of the benchmarks on a 486DX2/66: > > |The interpretive systems written in assembly language (except eforth > |opt) are, surprisingly, slower than Gforth. One important reason for > |the disappointing performance of these systems is probably that they > |are not written optimally for the 486 (e.g., they use the lods > |instruction). You are proud of yourself because Gforth is faster than Win32Forth? That is like winning the Special Olympics. Why tell me anyway? Win32Forth is Alex McDonald's Forth, not mine. Also, LODS was still efficient on the 80486 --- it was on the Pentium that the ciscy instructions stopped being efficient, because they couldn't go through the V pipe --- nowadays, all instructions get compiled into a riscy machine-code on-the-fly, but nobody knows anything about it because it is proprietary, so it is not clear if LODS or the hand-written equivalent is more or less efficient. I asked about this on comp.lang.asm.x86, but nobody knew which would be faster. LODS is smaller, so this makes the code more compact and so there is less cache-thrashing --- so it is likely that LODS is faster, but there is no way to know without testing on big Forth programs in which cache-thrashing becomes an issue. > > If you= > > write in x86 however, then you can dedicate registers globally, which can'= > >t be done in C, and which should at least quadruple your speed. > > GNU C supports explicit register variables, and Gforth uses that. Well, I looked this up: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.9.2/gcc/Global-Reg-Vars.html#Global-Reg-Vars There is nothing here that says how many you get. Also, we don't know what effect this has on the GCC optimization, to take away general-purpose registers. We don't actually know anything about what is going on internally --- you are just hoping that the GCC developers know what they are doing --- as I said before, you are giving the heavy-lifting to the C community because you aren't capable of it yourself. You promoting GCC is similar to WJ promoting Gauche Scheme --- in both cases, you are proud of being a USER of software that you didn't write and don't understand. > > Another adv= > >antage of x86 over C is that x86 is well-defined and always works the same = > >everywhere, and will continue to do so in the future throughout the 21st ce= > >ntury as new chips come out --- there is no wondering about what is "standa= > >rd-conformant" or not. > > That has become a concern in recent years, and that's why we are > planning to move away from GNU C. You can't move away from GCC because you are dependent upon non-standard features of GCC such as the global-registers mentioned above. I recommend that you be nice to the GCC maintainers --- send them a box of chocolates --- you depend upon them entirely in order for you to continue to claim to be a compiler-writer, because you aren't capable of writing a compiler yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-21 01:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <m9nt1t$70u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35936 |
on 20/01/2015 20:00:31, monkeyballs hugh, chief wooftwat and pillockwiper wrote: > Win32Forth is Alex McDonald's Forth, not mine. The last half of that sentence is right. The rest is wrong; Win32Forth is not mine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 00:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f80c3aeb-9803-48cf-8561-541359178ef6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35901 |
On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 8:32:42 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > Gforth runs on > a large variety of architectures; if the engine was written in IA-32 > assembly language, it would run only on IA-32. At the end of the MFX project, I was told to write a C compiler for the MiniForth. My plan was to upgrade LCC to generate MFX Forth code. I told John and Tom Hart that a C-style stack-frame was necessary, so they upgraded the MiniForth for this. The MiniForth doesn't have an indexed addressing mode however (this is needed for the return-stack pointer to access the stack-frame). What the MiniForth upgrade involved, was a set of 16 one-cell pseudo-registers in memory that had fast access as there were instructions added to the MiniForth instruction set that accessed these pseudo-registers inherently. The code that I wrote would push all of these pseudo-registers to the return-stack at the front of a function, then initialize them off the parameter stack or zero-initialize them (for the ones defined to the right of the | mark). The pseudo-registers would then be the local variables for the function. At the end of the function, their values would be popped off the return-stack to restore everything for the calling function. At this time, I pointed out that while these were pretty good local variables for Forth, they were not adequate for C because it was not possible to obtain their address with & and pass this address into a called function. Also, ANSI-C requires that structs can be held in local variables, which we couldn't do. Also, I pointed out that although I said that I "knew C," this did not mean that I knew enough about the internal workings of LCC to slam out the upgrade to LCC right away. Testra wasn't willing to pay me for my time in learning how LCC works, as they expected this to be knowledge that I bring to the table; they were only willing to pay for my time in actually writing code. I had read up on LCC and found that all of the processors it was targeted for, were traditional processors like the ARM, and nobody had ever upgraded LCC to generate Forth code, so I would be in entirely uncharted territory. The result is that the C compiler project died. Without an indexed addressing mode for the return-stack pointer, we couldn't have an ANSI-C compliant compiler, but would at best have a C-like language. Also, they really wanted it to be written for free --- I was homeless and living in my vehicle at the time, so I was not really a good candidate for working for free --- they apparently expected me to be so enthusiastic about MFX that I would no longer need money at all. They didn't really care about the C compiler (neither of them know C) --- they only wanted a C compiler as a selling point for the MiniForth, in that a customer might have an existing C program that they would want to run on the MiniForth, and didn't want to port the program over to Forth --- but no such customer existed, so this was not something they were willing to pay for. The result is that I quit Testra and got a job as an IBM370 assembly-language programmer, and so I was able to afford to live indoors. Theoretically, given enough time and effort (and money!), I could have written a C compiler for the MiniForth. Most likely, the necessary upgrade to the MiniForth to support a C-style stack-frame, would have meant that the MiniForth no longer fit in the Lattice isp1048 PLD, and a big FPGA would be needed instead, which would have raised the cost of the MiniForth for the customer. Theoretically however, getting a C compiler for the MiniForth was possible. I might have written a C compiler for the MiniForth. The reason why this is humorous, is that if I had done so, then Bernd and Anton would have said: "Hooray! The always-awesome C community has written a C compiler for yet another processor --- now we can run Gforth on it!" Then everybody on comp.lang.forth would have said: "Hooray! Bernd and Anton have ported Gforth over to a new processor with only one day of work needed --- this just goes to show that Gforth is the most portable Forth in the world --- this is why Bernd and Anton are on the Forth-200x committee and Hugh isn't." Of course, the speed of Gforth code would be maybe 1/100 the speed of MFX code, but efficiency isn't an issue for Dumb and Dumber --- all they care about is proving that C is the "god language" that Forth is entirely dependent upon. Another reason why this story is humorous, is that all of this occurred in 1994/1995. I had local variables in MFX for the MiniForth processor. At this time, Elizabeth Rather was writing the ANS-Forth standard, but she didn't have local variables in PolyForth. If she had tested the ANS-Forth local variables even once, she would have realized that LOCALS| defines them in backwards order. Duh! It wouldn't be until 1997 that SwiftForth came out and it would have local variables. Up through SwiftForth version-2 however, (LOCAL) would crash the system if it was used. Apparently in SwiftForth version-3 the local-variable implementation was finally fixed, but I haven't verified this because I refuse to pay the extra $300 that Elizabeth Rather expects from me in order for me to get version-3 (I have version-2). I had local variables working correctly on the MiniForth in 1995 though! But Forth Inc. failed for years and years to get local variables working correctly on the 32-bit x86 --- and the 32-bit x86 is much easier to program than the MiniForth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-19 07:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <04d4017c-1b6c-4e7a-8800-9910cc12ff88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35889 |
On Sunday, 18 January 2015 22:57:06 UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > Can somebody please explain to me why Gforth is written in C rather than x86 assembly-language? What possible explanation is there, except that none of you know assembly language? Because C (supposedly) provides a portable means of compiling the same source code to run on different platforms; Win, Linux, Android et al. I'm not sure how many loops they have to jump through to get that portability though. I'm sure it's not trivial to write code that runs on Win, Linux, Android, Solaris etc. Writing GForth (or any other system/program) in assembler is a non-starter if you want to run it on different platforms. E.g. Adroid is mostly associated with ARM CPUs, for desktop PCs it's x86. Never the twain shall meat. For all it's issues, C is probably the best choice as a portable assembly language for these different systems. And anyway, it seems as though it's not the C language that is at fault here, rather, it's GCC compiler. :-(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-06 09:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8gb3n$kmc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35490 |
On 06/01/2015 02:51, Bernd Paysan wrote: > The problem is however, that C is not about writing the fastest possible > program, but about executing some benchmarks as fast as possible, and > thereby not allowing to rewrite bad code in the benchmark. This means the > compiler must transform that code into something good, and that could be > arbitrary complicated; and is simplified if you are allowed to ignore all > kinds of corner-cases. > > That's however not how reality looks like, because all those benchmark > compilers*only* know how to transform the benchmark patterns, and don't do > anything good on the real world pattern. I saw a degradation in performance > of several crypto cores when going from GCC 4.7 to 4.8 (and no improvement > in 4.9), so it's pretty obvious that there is no universal speed > improvement. It is just very local to some selected benchmarks. > >> > I've been rather cynical about compiler writers and their compilers ever since, years ago, I knew someone who wrote a compiler that was sold commercially. He included code that recognised the popular benchmarks of the day and generated optimised machine code for those. He also deliberately crippled bits of the compiler so that he had improvements in hand for the next release a few months later - of course customers had to pay for those improvements. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-06 04:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <XN2dnVaIi-2sJjbJnZ2dnUU7-dWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #35490 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure the x264 code GCC recently broke was written with
> the intention to be the fastest h.264 encoder in the world, and the
> CPUs do really wrap-around very, very fast. Just as fast as the
> non-wrap-around case.
It's hard to know what the authors of x264 were thinking about, but it
doesn't seem to have been speed. The broken code is pointlessly
tricky
/*===== sum up =====*/
for (dd=d[k=0]; k<16; dd=d[++k])
{
satd += (dd < 0 ? -dd : dd) ;
}
and is fixed by
/*===== sum up =====*/
for (k=0; k < 16; k++)
{
dd = d[k];
satd += (dd < 0 ? -dd : dd);
}
which is easier to understand and does less work.
> That's however not how reality looks like, because all those
> benchmark compilers *only* know how to transform the benchmark
> patterns, and don't do anything good on the real world pattern.
I don't think that can be true any more for any compiler, because the
benchmarks people care about (e.g. SPEC cpu) are large corpuses of
important real-world code.
Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-09 21:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4f827086-d321-44ef-98d2-78754f045cb3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35490 |
On Monday, January 5, 2015 at 7:51:39 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > I've only implemented an AVL tree in > Forth 25 years ago (to check if that's a viable dictionary structure, and > dismissed it, because the hash was so much better)... This is another example of how you have delusions of grandeur. You think that because you implemented AVL trees 25 years ago, you know everything there is to know about trees. You really come across as an arrogant know-it-all when you make sweeping statements like this. In fact, trees have some advantages over hash-tables: 1.) They grow gradually into the heap. By comparison, with a hash table you have to guess ahead of time at how many nodes there will be, and allocate all of that memory at once. If you guess too low with a hash table, you have to "stop the world" and rebuild the hash table, so you don't get deterministic time usage. 2.) If the hash table gets rebuilt when it is half full, then my symtab takes the same amount of memory. A self-balancing tree such as LLRB or RB will typically take less memory. In general, a tree is a good choice when memory is limited (and if memory is extremely limited, then a linked list is the best choice), but if there is a lot of memory available then a hash-table will be faster. You denounced my symtab here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/w3tHPsTaZvE You said this: On Monday, November 30, 2009 at 3:33:31 AM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > Hugh Aguilar wrote: > > I agree that AVL trees are slow, but this doesn't have anything to do > > with symtab trees. > > Trees are trees. Even when you order the tree so that frequently accessed > words are closer to the root, you still have more to do. Just read John's > long analysis, it's worth reading. You are so proud of having implemented AVL trees 25 years ago! You believe that this qualifies you to denounce all tree implementations, including algorithms that weren't invented 25 years ago. Also, John Passaniti's "analysis" was just a lot of homosexual filth --- saying that my software "sucks" and so forth. You apparently find this quite amusing: On Monday, November 30, 2009 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > John Passaniti wrote: > [lengthy analysis of a sub-optimal proposal] > > Wow, what amount of effort you put in that. John, it's not worth the time. > Hugh will dismiss it, because analysis contains the word "anal", and he's > not responsive to critics, anyways. Other people like me have already done > that analysis (tree vs. hash) 20 years ago, and the result hasn't changed - > a proper implemented hash wins hands down. You have very strong opinions about subjects that you know nothing about --- and you have truck with faggots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-09 23:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7f14a423-66fe-40ba-bed5-9eac826f788c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35684 |
On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 9:34:50 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: [ snip ] > > Also, John Passaniti's "analysis" was just a lot of homosexual > filth --- saying that my software "sucks" and so forth. You > apparently find this quite amusing: > [ snip ] > > You have very strong opinions about subjects that you know > nothing about --- and you have truck with faggots. I enjoy reading Passaniti's old posts. He was certainly a bit arrogant, but clearly made considerable efforts to support his claims with carefully-constructed evidence. His alleged sexual preferences had absolutely no effect on my abilities to enjoy and learn from his posts, and I wish that he would return to c.l.f. Maybe I'm just leaning more to the left than you, but I am more offended by your use of the word "faggot" than I am by the notion that someone with homosexual tendencies might be able and willing to share a cogent point here. I am a lifelong fan of the human vagina, but I don't think that this has had any effect on my abilities to listen to someone who doesn't share this preference, especially when the discussion is far-removed from the matter of where a person derives sexual satisfaction. The term "sucks" has been in the American English vernacular for so long, it has lost any direct relation to the actual physical act, at least in my opinion. Hugh, you appear to me to be a talented programmer, and to be in possession of a well-above-average IQ. Why do you choose to alienate so many people in such a repetitious and rude manner? I am not educated in the science of mental pathology, but I suspect that you are more troubled in this area than most, and it saddens me to know that you are hurting your efforts to share your many positive talents with us in a constructive manner. I know that I could learn a lot from you on the subject of programming in Forth, and you haven't lost me yet, but ... c'mon dude, WTH?!?! You are human like the rest of us, and you're going to be wrong from time-to-time. Reacting gracefully to criticism is far preferable to reacting with the massive dysfunction you've demonstrated. I can't offer a solution to your problems, and I fear that my pleas will have little positive effect on your anti-social behavior, but I just felt that I needed to share. I'm still waiting for a private reply to my private request for your updated code library. Respectfully and patiently, Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hughaguilar96@yahoo.com" <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-10 11:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3cb02d6f-3afa-44af-bdaf-392db3394138@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35685 |
On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 12:28:19 AM UTC-7, Michael Barry wrote:
> ...the discussion
> is far-removed from the matter of where a person derives sexual
> satisfaction. The term "sucks" has been in the American
> English vernacular for so long, it has lost any direct relation
> to the actual physical act, at least in my opinion.
> ...
> You are human like the rest of
> us, and you're going to be wrong from time-to-time. Reacting
> gracefully to criticism is far preferable to reacting with
> the massive dysfunction you've demonstrated.
Actually, in this context the word "sucks" doesn't refer to the disgusting physical act that people like Passaniti do, but it refers to "sucking up" or "brown-nosing," as ANS-Forth programmers are required to do --- this use of the word has been in the American vernacular for a long time. There is a relation between the two uses of the word. Homosexuals are failures at everything they do (that is why the word "gay" is commonly used as a synonym for "failure," as in: "I used SwiftForth for a while, but it was gay, so I switched back to C."). Because of this, homosexuals not only suck in the physical sense, but they also "suck-up" as their only strategy for being accepted in society.
No matter what algorithm I used in symtab, I was going to be wrong. If I had used a hash-table, that would have been wrong too --- Payson and Passaniti would have said that it sucks, and that this proves that I suck as a Forth programmer, and that I should just apologize for having written it. Similarly, Elizabeth Rather says that MFX was a failure and that I got fired from Testra as a result --- this is her world-view --- she will never accept the existence of Forth outside of the context of ANS-Forth, so she lies and says that there is no such thing.
It is not really about "reacting gracefully to criticism" --- it is about "sucking" --- I mean, "sucking up" to the leading experts. This is the standard initiation into ANS-Forth; you have to start out by admitting that you suck --- then you get accepted as an ANS-Forth programmer --- then you gradually work up to being told that your code doesn't suck, but only so long as you praise the "leading experts" continuously as being your superiors. If you Mike ever post any ANS-Forth code publicly, you will have to go through the initiation too --- try it! --- be careful that you don't respond with "massive dysfunction," as it is human nature to respond badly to sucking.
I really consider ANS-Forth to be a cult. Elizabeth Rather herself is not a programmer --- she has never posted any code on comp.lang.forth that she didn't copy from "Starting Forth" (usually getting it wrong because she just types it from memory and doesn't test it), and she is ignorant of basic concepts such as the possibility of general-purpose data-structures --- she is a phony. Her strategy however, is to surround herself with people who are willing to say that she is the "leading expert" on Forth, in exchange for her saying that they are experts too. This is typical cult behavior. Notice how ANS-Forth members claim that because they don't use code-libraries they are writing super-optimized code for every application program, despite the fact that there are almost no commercial application programs written in ANS-Forth --- this is very comparable to how religious cults claim that by abandoning all the usual aspects of spirituality they are somehow more spiritual than everybody else, and are in fact the "Chosen People of God" (woo hoo!) --- faking up expertise is what cults are all about!
What Elizabeth Rather wants, is for Forthers to fake programming. For example, when Bernd Payson implemented quotations, he totally faked it. He knows that lambda functions have to have access to the parent functions local variables, but he didn't know how to implement this, so he just faked it with :NONAME. He did this because he knows that he will never be "wrong from time-to-time" but that everything he does is guaranteed to be accepted into Forth-200x without question. Another example is when Anton Ertl implemented {: he failed to define it as zeroing out the parameters to the right of the | --- he knows that initializing them with garbage values will make the programs indeterministic if the programmer forgets to explicitly initialize them, resulting in extremely hard-to-find bugs.
The mistakes of Payson and Ertl described above are 10-kyu mistakes --- they really should be able to do better. I think that they make mistakes like this on purpose, because they know that if they didn't fake up some bad programming occasionally, Elizabeth Rather would kick them off the Forth-200x committee. Similarly, Payson and Ertl implemented Gforth in C so that it would be too slow to compete with SwiftForth, because they knew that if they implemented it in assembly-language and it was faster than SwiftForth, Elizabeth Rather would kick them off the Forth-200x committee (this is why Elizabeth Rather didn't allow Stephen Pelc on the ANS-Forth committee, but relegated him to the peanut-gallery along with Ray Duncan and Charles Moore and various other Forthers who wouldn't suck). Elizabeth Rather only allows people who fake programming to be on the standards committee because these are the only people in the world who can't accuse her of faking programming --- not after they have done it themselves! --- this is why everybody has to go through the ANS-Forth initiation in which they publicly admit to sucking. After you have admitted to sucking, you can't point out that Forth-200x sucks, but you have to keep your mouth shut (which is ironic, because when Passaniti sucks in the physical sense, his mouth is wide open).
> I'm still
> waiting for a private reply to my private request for your
> updated code library.
>
> Respectfully and patiently,
>
> Mike
I never received any response from you so I didn't know you wanted it. It is possible that my spam filter discarded your email. Send another private response with your email address included and I will look for it --- I'm always happy when somebody is interested in the novice package --- it is depressing to be continuously told that it sucks.
I will have an official release pretty soon. I'm mostly just waiting on Gerry to write a version of TopRank.4th using his LAMBDA.FTH stuff
(http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Top_Rank_Per_Group#Forth). I'm writing some example programs and documentation for the novice package, but haven't added much code to what I already have. I might upgrade the <CSTR stuff, as that is by far the weakest aspect of the novice-package.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-11 00:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c932572f-bc4b-463b-a884-02090d39cb30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35687 |
On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 11:10:32 AM UTC-8, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote: [ ... snip ... ] > > I never received any response from you so I didn't know you wanted it. > It is possible that my spam filter discarded your email. Send another > private response with your email address included and I will look for > it --- I'm always happy when somebody is interested in the novice > package --- it is depressing to be continuously told that it sucks. > > I will have an official release pretty soon. I'm mostly just waiting > on Gerry to write a version of TopRank.4th using his LAMBDA.FTH stuff > (http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Top_Rank_Per_Group#Forth). I'm writing > some example programs and documentation for the novice package, but > haven't added much code to what I already have. I might upgrade the > <CSTR stuff, as that is by far the weakest aspect of the novice- > package. No problem, Hugh. I can wait for the official release ... I have more than enough on my hobby plate as it is. Best wishes, Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-12 22:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m91ijs$gjn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35687 |
On 10/01/2015 19:10, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > I will have an official release pretty soon. I'm mostly just waiting on Gerry to write a version of TopRank.4th using his LAMBDA.FTH stuff > (http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Top_Rank_Per_Group#Forth). I'm writing some example programs and documentation for the novice package, but haven't added much code to what I already have. I might upgrade the <CSTR stuff, as that is by far the weakest aspect of the novice-package. Sorry but I think I'm going to have to disappoint you Hugh. I had a quick look at your solution after getting it to work with VFX Forth (I cut out some of the FP stuff as VFX didn't like the FNEAR macro) I'm not sure what you were asking me to do, in your original request in the other thread you wrote: "This code is an example of using a lambda function (the <TOP> function) that accesses the data on the parameter stack of the higher-order function --- it is not anonymous like a quotation, but it supports the basic idea" and that you'd like to see a version using lambda.fth. If that's what you want I don't see the point. The code in <TOP> could be brought into a quotation in TOP but is rather lengthy and rather unwieldy. Shared variables could be used but wouldn't offer any more than using locals inside <TOP> itself. If you want a fundamental rewrite of the whole thing, I'm sorry but I just don't have the time. You should release the latest version of your novice package without waiting for me. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-12 17:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8355f64f-be26-4f76-8d8b-54c76e4e49c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35752 |
On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 3:42:35 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > On 10/01/2015 19:10, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > > I will have an official release pretty soon. I'm mostly just waiting on Gerry to write a version of TopRank.4th using his LAMBDA.FTH stuff > > (http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Top_Rank_Per_Group#Forth). I'm writing some example programs and documentation for the novice package, but haven't added much code to what I already have. I might upgrade the <CSTR stuff, as that is by far the weakest aspect of the novice-package. > > Sorry but I think I'm going to have to disappoint you Hugh. I had a > quick look at your solution after getting it to work with VFX Forth (I > cut out some of the FP stuff as VFX didn't like the FNEAR macro) > > I'm not sure what you were asking me to do, in your original request in > the other thread you wrote: > > "This code is an example of using a lambda function (the <TOP> function) > that accesses the data on the parameter stack of the higher-order > function --- it is not anonymous like a quotation, but it supports the > basic idea" and that you'd like to see a version using lambda.fth. > > If that's what you want I don't see the point. The code in <TOP> could > be brought into a quotation in TOP but is rather lengthy and rather > unwieldy. Shared variables could be used but wouldn't offer any more > than using locals inside <TOP> itself. You don't see the point??? You are the only other person on comp.lang.forth who knows what lambda functions are, so you are the only person I expected to understand the TopRank.4th program. You should be able to figure this short program out --- it is not that difficult --- try again! TOP calls EACH, and EACH calls <TOP> for every node in the list. Prior to calling EACH, TOP put the following data on the stack: \ -- n rank current-dept head When <TOP> executes, it uses that data, and modifies all of it except N that stays the same throughout. This data can't be held in locals inside of <TOP> itself, because <TOP> gets called repeatedly (once for every node). This is where your LAMBDA.FTH can work --- this data is would be held in your pseudo-locals so that every time <TOP> executes, <TOP> can read and write to this shared data. It took me only one hour to write the TopRank.4th program. It blows my mind that you failed to understand how such a trivial program worked. You commented: "Shared variables could be used but wouldn't offer any more than using locals inside <TOP> itself." This comment indicates that you don't understand that <TOP> is getting executed repeatedly (EACH executes it for every node in the list). I find it difficult to believe that such a trivial program is beyond you --- I think you may be playing dumb to appease the Forth-200x committee (mostly Payson) who tell us that quotations are just :NONAME with syntactic sugar and that there is no such thing as sharing variables --- or maybe you just want to let LAMBDA.FTH get put in Forth-200x without ever shining too much light on the efficiency issue (this plan should work pretty well, as the Forth-200x committee loves complicated code such as your LAMBDA.FTH because they think it makes them look smart, and they avoid discussions of efficiency as much as possible). > If you want a fundamental rewrite of the whole thing, I'm sorry but I > just don't have the time. You should release the latest version of your > novice package without waiting for me. I'm not asking for a "fundamental rewrite of the whole thing" --- quite the opposite, I'm asking for a direct port of my TopRank.4th, but using your LAMBDA.FTH for sharing the ( -- n rank current-dept head ) data rather than my crude method of holding that data on the parameter-stack --- I can't believe that you don't have the time to port a trivial example program that took me only one hour to write from scratch. I know how LAMBDA.FTH works, so I could do the port myself for the novice package, but since LAMBDA.FTH is your baby, you are the best champion of LAMBDA.FTH. Would you rather that I write the example program for your LAMBDA.FTH?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-12 19:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <60f98aa1-60ba-4298-892f-e90e980cc771@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35755 |
On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 7:33:04 PM UTC-6, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think you may be playing dumb to appease the Forth-200x committee (mostly Payson) who tell us that quotations are just :NONAME with syntactic sugar and that there is no such thing as sharing variables --- or maybe you just want to let LAMBDA.FTH get put in Forth-200x without ever shining too much light on the efficiency issue (this plan should work pretty well, as the Forth-200x committee loves complicated code such as your LAMBDA.FTH because they think it makes them look smart, and they avoid discussions of efficiency as much as possible).
Faces can bruise, you know, if they receive a hard enough facepalm.
Write your higher order words twice:
\ immediate variant
: each-filename[
s" ." postpone sliteral ]] open-dir throw >r BEGIN
pad $1000 r@ read-dir throw WHILE pad swap [[ ; immediate
\ inner code: ( c-addr u -- ) ( R: dir -- dir )
: ]each-filename ]] REPEAT drop r> close-dir throw [[ ; immediate
\ xt-consuming variant
: each-filename { xt -- }
each-filename[ xt execute ]each-filename ;
-- Julian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-12 21:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d705d1b9-0da2-4a77-82c2-9a1eab56e2ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35763 |
On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 8:17:35 PM UTC-7, Julian Fondren wrote:
> On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 7:33:04 PM UTC-6, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I think you may be playing dumb to appease the Forth-200x committee (mostly Payson) who tell us that quotations are just :NONAME with syntactic sugar and that there is no such thing as sharing variables --- or maybe you just want to let LAMBDA.FTH get put in Forth-200x without ever shining too much light on the efficiency issue (this plan should work pretty well, as the Forth-200x committee loves complicated code such as your LAMBDA.FTH because they think it makes them look smart, and they avoid discussions of efficiency as much as possible).
>
> Faces can bruise, you know, if they receive a hard enough facepalm.
>
> Write your higher order words twice:
>
> \ immediate variant
> : each-filename[
> s" ." postpone sliteral ]] open-dir throw >r BEGIN
> pad $1000 r@ read-dir throw WHILE pad swap [[ ; immediate
>
> \ inner code: ( c-addr u -- ) ( R: dir -- dir )
>
> : ]each-filename ]] REPEAT drop r> close-dir throw [[ ; immediate
>
> \ xt-consuming variant
> : each-filename { xt -- }
> each-filename[ xt execute ]each-filename ;
I am well aware of this technique --- see EACH[ and ]EACH in LIST.4TH, that can be used instead of EACH.
Your code isn't any good because you aren't pushing the higher-order functions' internal data onto the return-stack during the EXECUTE (or holding it in local variables, although that is usually slower) --- this is necessary in order for the lambda function to have access to the parent function's data on the data-stack --- in TopRank.4th this would be the ( -- n rank current-dept head ) data that TOP provided to <TOP> (note that EACH did not cover this data up with its own internal data, which would have resulted in <TOP> not having access to the data).
With your code, if the lambda function attempts to access the parent function's data, it will instead access the higher-order function's internal data --- chaos will result!
This is why I said that Gerry is the only person on comp.lang.forth who understands what lambda functions are --- you obviously don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-13 04:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4ae9124e-885a-4e8a-b4c4-69bb3809a19d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35767 |
On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 11:06:10 PM UTC-6, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> Your code isn't any good because you aren't pushing the higher-order functions' internal data onto the return-stack during the EXECUTE (or holding it in local variables, although that is usually slower) --- this is necessary in order for the lambda function to have access to the parent function's data on the data-stack
: count-files ( -- u )
0 each-filename [ 2drop 1+ ]each-filename ;
: internal ." internal" :
: data ." data" ;
' internal ' data [: 2drop over execute dup execute ;] each-filename 2drop
\ Output: internaldatainternaldatainternaldata...
Seems like I'm doing precisely that, and that it works just fine.
On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 10:55:08 PM UTC-6, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 8:12:48 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
> > They all implemented and tested all technical changes, and reported
> > results.
>
> What did they implement and test these technical changes on, if there was no reference compiler? They just used a variety of closed-source commercial compilers, so no member of this "development team" could duplicate another team member's test --- you end up with a mish-mash of features that have never been tested together.
The ol' "shit againt the wall" argumentation technique. Something is sure to
stick, eventually, so just keep doing it. And don't worry if your previous
efforts were so poorly considered that they get refuted by a calendar. And if
people are too bored and exhausted by your single-minded idiocy to not respond
to some argument -- it means that's a good argument! Keep repeating it until
you win!
And don't worry if your new flung shit (how DARE you not have a reference
implementation) is contradictory in tone to your old flung shit (how DARE you
take SwiftForth as the reference implementation). Other people are all
secretly conspiring against you anyway.
> This mish-mash results in clashes between features, such as locals and >R data:
Hmm, no, sounds like "wanting a particular implementation strategy for locals
to be available" led to that.
> A feature-clash like this is very difficult to explain to Forth students --- this is why nobody is volunteering to be a Forth student!
No, no it isn't. Prospective Forth students would have to *know* about that
conflict to say, oh, better not then.
Do you even believe even believe the words coming out of your mouth? I imagine
an internal routine kicks in, "TRY TO TWIST THE KNIFE", and then you burble an
attempt to tie what you're talking about to a subject you expect the reader to
find poignant -- here, forth's popularity.
I think Forth might be headed for some popularity. Because, John Passanti's
reporting on the common wisdom of his close colleagues aside, plain CGI is
extremely, hugely popular today, and so are shared servers which are (for all
that they have might have 32 CPUs and 64GB of RAM) actually quite
resource-tight for individual users. And the dominant language here does
shockingly little for its niche. For example, people who think about CGI
in CLF seem to immediately think, well first, I need a DSL to generate HTML,
but PHP lacks such a thing and when I open up WordPress I see hand-written HTML
in string literals rather than any attempt at such a thing.
If you do care about Forth's popularity, stop whining about the standard and
write a program for one system that people will want to use enough that they'll
install that system to run your program. Write a program that they won't care
is written in Forth. Once you get a lot of customers, and a program worth a
lot of customers, you'll attract a second group who will be your new Forth
programmers: people who will want to extend or work with your program to
contribute to the community of your customers.
That second group is not going to give a damn about some obscure conflict in
the standard. The world is full of popular languages with more serious
problems.
> The brave ANS-Forth programmer may write code that assumes the control-flow data has its own stack
Which would then mean that his code has an environmental dependency on that
being the case, and won't work on Forths where that isn't the case.
Which is not that big of a deal. Of course it's much better to be *aware* of
your environmental dependencies.
> chaos will result!
When porting code to run on a Forth he hadn't tested it on, the code'll crash
and he'll eventually trace it to the control flow stack. "Oh, I guess I didn't
understand that section of the standard. Not understanding a standards
document is certainly a problem when it comes to correctly producing portable
code."
Or if he's Hugh I guess he'll rant for the next three years about it.
Just use locals or the return stack to pass data into the word you're
building, avoiding control stack-affecting words.
> The big problem with ANS-Forth, is that it doesn't standardize behavior
If you use the standard to document your library's environmental dependencies,
then porting is a matter of looking between your documentation and the
destination system's documentation, and then resolving dependencies the system
doesn't meet. If you *don't* use the standard to do this, but instead just
*assume* that your running code is without environmental dependency, then --
well of course whatever happens is the standard's fault!
> almost everybody is gripped by vendor lock-in, which is what the standard was supposed to prevent.
No. Since your definition of 'portable' is "if my code runs under this system,
then it must run under all systems", then the instant that any system adds any
words or features or libraries to the ANS wordsets, then your code could
potentially use one of them and then be gripped by 'vendor lock-in'.
Which would mean that the standard would have to prevent systems from offering
*more* to their users. They would all have to have the exact same WORDS
output, and no extra libraries, but just vary in how well or for what platform
they were implemented.
This definition of 'portable' is your own invention. It wasn't the intention
of Forth94.
-- Julian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-13 15:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m93bt3$4cu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35755 |
On 13/01/2015 01:33, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 3:42:35 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote:
>> On 10/01/2015 19:10, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> I will have an official release pretty soon. I'm mostly just waiting on Gerry to write a version of TopRank.4th using his LAMBDA.FTH stuff
>>> (http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Top_Rank_Per_Group#Forth). I'm writing some example programs and documentation for the novice package, but haven't added much code to what I already have. I might upgrade the <CSTR stuff, as that is by far the weakest aspect of the novice-package.
>>
>> Sorry but I think I'm going to have to disappoint you Hugh. I had a
>> quick look at your solution after getting it to work with VFX Forth (I
>> cut out some of the FP stuff as VFX didn't like the FNEAR macro)
>>
>> I'm not sure what you were asking me to do, in your original request in
>> the other thread you wrote:
>>
>> "This code is an example of using a lambda function (the <TOP> function)
>> that accesses the data on the parameter stack of the higher-order
>> function --- it is not anonymous like a quotation, but it supports the
>> basic idea" and that you'd like to see a version using lambda.fth.
>>
>> If that's what you want I don't see the point. The code in <TOP> could
>> be brought into a quotation in TOP but is rather lengthy and rather
>> unwieldy. Shared variables could be used but wouldn't offer any more
>> than using locals inside <TOP> itself.
>
> You don't see the point??? You are the only other person on comp.lang.forth who knows what lambda functions are
Flattering but not true
> so you are the only person I expected to understand the TopRank.4th program. You should be able to figure this short program out --- it is not that difficult --- try again!
>
> TOP calls EACH, and EACH calls <TOP> for every node in the list. Prior to calling EACH, TOP put the following data on the stack:
> \ -- n rank current-dept head
I do and did understand all this. Why didn't you use EACH[ ... ]EACH in
TOP? It works perfectly
> When <TOP> executes, it uses that data, and modifies all of it except N that stays the same throughout. This data can't be held in locals inside of <TOP> itself, because <TOP> gets called repeatedly (once for every node). This is where your LAMBDA.FTH can work --- this data is would be held in your pseudo-locals so that every time <TOP> executes, <TOP> can read and write to this shared data.
>
If locals can't be used in <TOP> you'd better tell this code that it
shouldn't give the correct answers :-)
Long comments removed. Perhaps I should have said a combination of
locals and the data stack
: <top> ( n rank current-dept head node -- n rank current-dept head )
{ dept head node } \ -- n rank
dept count node .dept @ count compare A=B <>
if \ we have a new department
drop 0 node .dept @ to dept \ -- n 0
then
2dup >
if \ if N > RANK then it is good
head node <clone-employee> link to head
then
1+ dept head \ -- n rank'
;
: top ( n head -- new-head )
>r
0 c" xxx" nil \ -- n rank current-dept new-head
r> each[ <top> ]each \ initially for an invalid department
3nip ;
> It took me only one hour to write the TopRank.4th program. It blows my mind that you failed to understand how such a trivial program worked.
To assume someone doesn't understand something if they merely question
why it's wanted or necessary is a non-sequitur. I did understand your
program.
>
> I'm not asking for a "fundamental rewrite of the whole thing" --- quite the opposite, I'm asking for a direct port of my TopRank.4th, but using your LAMBDA.FTH for sharing the ( -- n rank current-dept head ) data rather than my crude method of holding that data on the parameter-stack --- I can't believe that you don't have the time to port a trivial example program that took me only one hour to write from scratch.
>
IF that's all you want then it is easy, here are two versions of TOP
(The other words using EACH[ are much simpler)
1) Using shared variables for the lot
:lam top ( n head -- new-head )
0 c" xxx" nil {< n node rank dept head >}
[: each[ to node
dept count node .dept @ count compare A=B <>
if 0 to rank node .dept @ to dept then
n rank >
if head node <clone-employee> link to head then
rank 1+ to rank
]each head
;] node swap execd \ or NODE could be called before [:
\ then SWAP is unnecesssary
;lam
2) Leaving n and rank on the data stack
:lam top ( n head -- new-head )
{< node >} 0 c" xxx" nil {< dept head >}
[: each[ to node ( n rank )
dept count node .dept @ count compare A=B <>
if drop 0 node .dept @ to dept then
2dup >
if head node <clone-employee> link to head then
1+
]each 2drop head
;] node swap execd
;lam
In both cases EACH[ and ]EACH could be simplified slightly
--
Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-13 18:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2a8b7c37-89ba-4320-a214-21b923c191af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35785 |
On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 8:00:16 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > On 13/01/2015 01:33, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > so you are the only person I expected to understand the TopRank.4th program. You should be able to figure this short program out --- it is not that difficult --- try again! > > > > TOP calls EACH, and EACH calls <TOP> for every node in the list. Prior to calling EACH, TOP put the following data on the stack: > > \ -- n rank current-dept head > > I do and did understand all this. Why didn't you use EACH[ ... ]EACH in > TOP? It works perfectly Because when I make <TOP> a function, <TOP> can be tested independently of TOP. If the <TOP> code is buried inside of an EACH[ ]EACH inside of TOP and uses the TOP local variables, it is difficult to test the <TOP> code on a single node, but <TOP> has to be tested on the entire data-structure. The work-around here, is that a data-structure can be built that contains a single node, and <TOP> cum TOP can be tested on it. This can make testing quite cumbersome when the order of the nodes makes a difference in the testing (which is true of <TOP>). My impression of you Gerry, is that you do know computer-science concepts such as lambda functions, but your background is primarily in some language other than Forth, and you are weak on Forth philosophy --- specifically, you are not getting the importance of factoring (your LAM: TOP was gigantic) in making testing easy, and factoring is one of the pillars of Forth philosophy. As a general-rule of thumb, Forthers will make all functions 7 lines or less, and will make most of them 4 or less --- this rule of thumb must continue to be adhered to after lambda functions are introduced into Forth, or the result won't really be Forth. This discussion of lambda functions is actually related to the other discussion regarding the control-flow stack. See my <1ARRAY> etc. --- these are gigantic ugly functions that don't adhere to the idea of factoring functions --- the reason they had to be big, is because they hold all their data in local variables that can't be shared with sub-functions, and the reason they did this was because I couldn't just hold the data on the data-stack because the control-flow data would have gotten in the way. Believe me! I have worked as a professional Forth programmer and have written big complicated programs that worked --- I assure you that adhering to Forth philosophy, such as factoring code, is what makes big complicated programs work (little ones too, and everything in between).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-13 21:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9cc30b6e-8164-48e1-9779-f9b439533cf3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35799 |
On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 7:45:24 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 8:00:16 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > > Why didn't you use EACH[ ... ]EACH in > > TOP? It works perfectly > > Because when I make <TOP> a function, <TOP> can be tested independently of TOP. If the <TOP> code is buried inside of an EACH[ ]EACH inside of TOP and uses the TOP local variables, it is difficult to test the <TOP> code on a single node, but <TOP> has to be tested on the entire data-structure. There are some other problems with EACH[ ]EACH also. EACH[ and ]EACH also have the problem that they use >R and so, if the code inside is expecting to find data on the return-stack, it will instead find the EACH[ data on top of its data --- chaos will result! --- this is documented in the novice package, but it is a pitfall that the user isn't likely expecting, so I recommend in the novice package that EACH generally be used (EACH[ and ]EACH can be used when speed is important, as they are slightly faster, and when the user is sure that the code inside doesn't use R@ and expect to find data from a >R prior to the EACH[ macro). What this effectively means is that the higher-order function has to use local variables rather than R@ to hold its data, which makes the higher-order function slower on most systems (locals are especially slow on SwiftForth compared to R@), and is also just a weird limitation that most users would see as yet more complication in an already gratuitously complicated language. Another problem is that macros like EACH[ and ]EACH may not be possible for all data-structures. A linked list is pretty simple, so EACH[ and ]EACH were easy to write. I didn't write macros like this in ASSOCIATION.4TH for the binary tree, and I'm not sure without trying if this is even possible. Can you guarantee that such macros are possible to write for EVERY data-structure known at this time, and the future-invented ones too? Some higher-order functions may contain EXIT, and they can't be made into macros.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-16 20:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <76f1b5fb-216c-4942-90cb-f3e53354ccae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35805 |
On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 10:12:34 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 7:45:24 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 8:00:16 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > > > Why didn't you use EACH[ ... ]EACH in > > > TOP? It works perfectly > > > > Because when I make <TOP> a function, <TOP> can be tested independently of TOP. If the <TOP> code is buried inside of an EACH[ ]EACH inside of TOP and uses the TOP local variables, it is difficult to test the <TOP> code on a single node, but <TOP> has to be tested on the entire data-structure. > > There are some other problems with EACH[ ]EACH also. > > EACH[ and ]EACH also have the problem that they use >R and so, if the code inside is expecting to find data on the return-stack, it will instead find the EACH[ data on top of its data --- chaos will result! --- this is documented in the novice package, but it is a pitfall that the user isn't likely expecting, so I recommend in the novice package that EACH generally be used (EACH[ and ]EACH can be used when speed is important, as they are slightly faster, and when the user is sure that the code inside doesn't use R@ and expect to find data from a >R prior to the EACH[ macro). What this effectively means is that the higher-order function has to use local variables rather than R@ to hold its data, which makes the higher-order function slower on most systems (locals are especially slow on SwiftForth compared to R@), and is also just a weird limitation that most users would see as yet more complication in an already gratuitously complicated language. > > Another problem is that macros like EACH[ and ]EACH may not be possible for all data-structures. A linked list is pretty simple, so EACH[ and ]EACH were easy to write. I didn't write macros like this in ASSOCIATION.4TH for the binary tree, and I'm not sure without trying if this is even possible. Can you guarantee that such macros are possible to write for EVERY data-structure known at this time, and the future-invented ones too? Some higher-order functions may contain EXIT, and they can't be made into macros. In my novice package (LIST.4TH), FIND-PRIOR is an example of a higher-order function that can't be written as a pair of macros because it contains EXIT. All in all, I'm not impressed by your idea of writing a gigantic function and putting the loop inside of it so that everything in the loop has access to the same local variables --- this has been done in C for a long time, and it is a big part of why I don't like C --- Forth is somewhat better than C for this, because Forth has macros that allow for some information hiding, but it is still a bad technique.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web