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 10 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 17 Next page →
| From | Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-10 16:48 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <m2h9vyiw5o.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #35554 |
Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 10:49:24 AM UTC-6, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> writes:
>> > The author of BAR in file1.fs is not the slightest bit inconvenienced by
>> > the earlier X that only FOO cared about. ...
>> > The problems you're worrying about aren't Forth problems to begin with.
>>
>> But now there's two variables of dead weight in the microcontroller's
>> scarce ram instead of just one, or better yet none.
>
> I think that you need a series of concrete examples for you to to
> really get anywhere talking about this. In a game of 'what if'
> other people will just keep saying, OK, if that were the case,
> then I would do something different, but since that's hardly ever
> the case, it doesn't have a lot to do with what's actually done...
> which is what I'd assume you're interested in.
>
> Anyway, I've never written for a microcontroller, so I won't reply
> to this.
>
>> Also not explained is what to do if FOO or BAR is recursive.
>
> variable x
> : foo ( n-lim n -- ) 2dup = if 2drop exit then
> x @ over cr type 1+ recurse ;
> : bar ( c-addr u -- )
> swap x ! 1+ 1 foo ;
>
> s" hello" bar
> h
> he
> hel
> hell
> hello ok
>
> Recursive functions still have stacks. If you're walking a tree,
> you don't need to keep copying the tree for each recursive call;
> just keep navigation information on the stack. Meanwhile, in the
> context of actual code, a variable might be a reasonable place for
> the tree.
>
>> I wrote a word a while back
>> that I just couldn't see a decent way to write without locals or (if
>> general) some kind of ALLOCed or ALLOTed resizeable auxiliary array. It
>> was recursive so it couldn't use VARIABLEs to hold temporaries, and it
>> had enough stuff on the stack that juggling with DUP/ROT/etc. would have
>> been awful. In practice the recursion depth was never higher than about
>> 4, so setting aside a static buffer would have been ok for the
>> application, but still.
>
> Why not post stuff like this to clf? You still might not like the
> answer, but you'd have it.
>
>> Maybe things would ease up if we were less squeamish about reaching into
>> the data stack.
>
> Yuck.
>
>> Let's face it, we already have started down
>> that path if we accept the existence of ROT, 2OVER, and so on.
>
> No, we haven't. There has indeed been no movement along that path
> at all. 2OVER operates on a stack of three elements -- it just
> looks like more when you use the wrong stack notation. Avoiding
> ROT and -ROT just causes your code to grow little return-stack
> mushrooms. I tried. They grew. I said: this is just giving the
> return-stack a bad name.
>
> (And the way I think of it is: I use ROT want I want the third
> element to come to me. I use -ROT when I want the first element
> to go away from me. Come, come, come; go away go away go away.
> There's even something subtly negative about the word -ROT)
>
>> So we could have OVER0, OVER1, OVER2, ... up to OVER8 say.
>> OVER[k] is the same as k PICK so OVER0 is like DUP, OVER1 is like
>> OVER, and so on. These aren't as ugly as PICK since they each have
>> a predictable (not data dependent) stack action.
>
> They are exactly as ugly as PICK . You must be considering beauty
> from the perspective of a static analysis program. For a human
> OVER[k] is just going to be interchangable with k PICK
>
>
> Meanwhile, have some ugly attempts at delocalizing some
> triangle-drawing:
>
> 2e wide s>f f/ fconstant width
> 2e deep s>f f/ fconstant depth
>
> ...
>
> : brick, { F: x F: y -- } \ bottom-left-coord --
> x sf, y sf,
> x width f+ sf, y sf,
> x width f+ sf, y depth f+ sf,
> x sf, y sf,
> x width f+ sf, y depth f+ sf,
> x sf, y depth f+ sf,
>
> ...
>
> : x'th ( n -- r ) 2* sfloats here + sf@ ;
> : y'th ( n -- r ) 2* 1+ sfloats here + sf@ ;
>
> : brick ( F: x F: y -- ) \ bottom-left-coord --
> fswap sf, sf,
> -1 y'th -1 x'th wide f+ sf, sf,
> -2 y'th -1 x'th sf, depth f+ sf,
> -3 y'th -3 x'th sf, sf,
> -2 y'th -2 x'th sf, sf,
> -1 y'th -2 x'th sf, sf, ;
>
> ...
>
> fvariable x fvariable y
> : coord, ( -- ) x sf@ sf, y sf@ sf, ;
> : deeper ( -- ) here 2 sfloats - dup sf@ depth + swap sf! ;
> : wider ( -- ) here 1 sfloats - dup sf@ wide + swap sf! ;
>
> : brick ( F: x F: y -- ) y sf! x sf! \ bottom-left coord --
> coord,
> coord, wider
> coord, wider deeper
> coord,
> coord, wider deeper
> coord, deeper ;
>
> -- Julian
Why just don't use FOVER and FDUP?
: brick, ( x y -- ) \ bottom-left-coord --
fover sf, fdup sf,
fover width f+ sf, fdup sf,
fover width f+ sf, fdup depth f+ sf,
fover sf, fdup sf,
fover width f+ sf, fdup depth f+ sf,
fover sf, fdup depth f+ sf,
FDROP FDROP
;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-08 16:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Jan8.172554@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35546 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>Maybe things would ease up if we were less squeamish about reaching into
>the data stack. I.e. we could have some primitives like OVER but that
>went multiple levels in. Let's face it, we already have started down
>that path if we accept the existence of ROT, 2OVER, and so on.
>So we could have OVER0, OVER1, OVER2, ... up to OVER8 say.
If you need that, you have at least 8 stack items on the stack.
That's far too much to keep track of easily. If you cannot design
your program to use fewer stack items, I suggest going for locals.
On that note, it is interesting to see what the students come up with.
Some really like to keep, say, triples on the stack instead of
managing them in memory, and then come up with stuff like these OVER
variants above.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-08 08:50 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <qaqdnVROgZ3nTDPJnZ2dnUU7-emdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #35594 |
On 1/8/15 6:25 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: > Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes: >> Maybe things would ease up if we were less squeamish about reaching into >> the data stack. I.e. we could have some primitives like OVER but that >> went multiple levels in. Let's face it, we already have started down >> that path if we accept the existence of ROT, 2OVER, and so on. >> So we could have OVER0, OVER1, OVER2, ... up to OVER8 say. > > If you need that, you have at least 8 stack items on the stack. > That's far too much to keep track of easily. If you cannot design > your program to use fewer stack items, I suggest going for locals. Completely agree. More factoring and redesign called for here. Or, quite seriously, data structures (particularly if you're using some of these things in several definitions). > On that note, it is interesting to see what the students come up with. > Some really like to keep, say, triples on the stack instead of > managing them in memory, and then come up with stuff like these OVER > variants above. If you data is naturally in triples, such as 3-vectors, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But you really need to design your program so as not to have a bunch of them on the stack at once. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mhx@iae.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-07 10:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e2e575c9-f739-4c64-b52c-75f71b4e128b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35516 |
On Tuesday, January 6, 2015 10:37:51 PM UTC+1, Paul Rubin wrote:
[..]
> I admire the ability to have stack-juggling code intuitively flow from
> one's fingertips, like the example Alex McDonald just posted, to swap
> two words given pointers to them:
>
> : exchange ( ptrA ptrB -- ) 2dup @ swap @ rot ! swap ! ;
>
> I can write code like that, though with a bit of head scratching rather
> than by intuition. But a locals version (to me) looks cleaner and
> simpler:
>
> : exchange {: x y -- :} x @ y @ x ! y ! ;
>
> So in an implementation where the compiler can generate good code from
> the locals version, what is gained from writing the dup/rot/swap
> version?
They are indeed equivalent, so there is only the benefit of increased
clarity (using non-standard params| instead of non-standard {: ):
FORTH> : exchange1 ( ptrA ptrB -- ) 2dup @ swap @ rot ! swap ! ; ok
FORTH> : exchange2 params| x y | x @ y @ x ! y ! ; ok
FORTH> variable a variable b ok
FORTH> : test2 a b exchange1 ; : test3 a b exchange2 ; ok
FORTH> ' test2 idis
$01223CC0 : test2
$01223CCA mov rbx, $012237E0 qword-offset
$01223CD1 mov rdi, $012237C0 qword-offset
$01223CD8 mov $012237E0 qword-offset, rdi
$01223CDF mov $012237C0 qword-offset, rbx
$01223CE6 ;
FORTH> ' test3 idis
$01223D40 : test3
$01223D4A mov rbx, $012237C0 qword-offset
$01223D51 mov rdi, $012237E0 qword-offset
$01223D58 mov $012237C0 qword-offset, rdi
$01223D5F mov $012237E0 qword-offset, rbx
$01223D66 ;
-marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-08 16:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Jan8.173247@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35558 |
mhx@iae.nl writes:
>They are indeed equivalent, so there is only the benefit of increased
>clarity (using non-standard params| instead of non-standard {: ):
{: is Forth-2012.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-09 18:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54b06421$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #35558 |
On 1/7/15 1:37 PM, mhx@iae.nl wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 6, 2015 10:37:51 PM UTC+1, Paul Rubin wrote:
> [..]
>> : exchange ( ptrA ptrB -- ) 2dup @ swap @ rot ! swap ! ;
>>
>> I can write code like that, though with a bit of head scratching rather
>> than by intuition. But a locals version (to me) looks cleaner and
>> simpler:
>>
>> : exchange {: x y -- :} x @ y @ x ! y ! ;
>>
>> So in an implementation where the compiler can generate good code from
>> the locals version, what is gained from writing the dup/rot/swap
>> version?
>
> They are indeed equivalent, so there is only the benefit of increased
> clarity (using non-standard params| instead of non-standard {: ):
*Very* nice, Marcel. Michael Hore was able to do this sort of thing in
Mops on the PowerPC, with the advantage of lots of registers though.
Great to see you doing it on the Intel.
-Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-07 07:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54ad2725$0$288$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #35507 |
On 1/6/15 11:41 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Really, all the practical Forth code I've looked at is full of stack
> manipulation that obviously took some concentration to write. Leaving
> that to the compiler frees up those mental cycles for more important
> things.
>
> Here's a classic example, where you want to draw a rectangle given the
> coordinates of its lower left and upper right corners. x y MOVE lifts
> the pen and puts it at location x,y while x y DRAW moves the pen
> to x,y without lifting it. Simple implementation:
>
> : draw-rectangle {: x0 y0 x1 y1 :}
> x0 y0 MOVE x0 y1 DRAW x1 y1 DRAW x1 y0 DRAW x0 y0 MOVE ;
\ last move should be draw
>
> I remember seeing Chuck's code using VARIABLES for intermediate values
> that didn't fit on the stack, but that doesn't seem like an improvement
> over locals.
Brodie's Thinking Forth has an example similar to your draw-rectangle.
See chapter 7 [BOX]. From Brodie: "I’ve been guilty many times of
playing hotshot, trying to do as much as possible on the stack rather
than define a [...] variable. There are three reasons to avoid this
cockiness. First, it’s a pain to code that way. Second, the result is
unreadable. Third, all your work becomes useless when a design change
becomes necessary, and the order of two arguments changes on the stack.
The DUPs, OVERs and ROTs weren’t really solving the problem, just
jockeying things into position."
Your comment about efficiency not being a problem depending on the Forth
used is correct because it is true that some Forths will use registers
for locals. Even if a Forth does not use registers for locals,
depending on the situation locals can still be a good way to go. I can
tell you that there is production code in the current MacForth
integrated editor (MacForth on VFX) that uses locals in a very similar
fashion to your draw-rectangle. It could be done otherwise but it would
be ugly and not as maintain-able. This a Personal Computer application
with lots of resources and fast processors, not an embedded application,
which may change the decision to use locals.
Designing a graphics package that avoids four stack items, instead of
just using something simple like your draw-rectangle, is not necessary
as is demonstrated by MacForth (no doubt there are many other similar
production code examples).
As far as losing the ability to factor with locals, there may be some
validity to that but it doesn't always mean locals are a poor solution.
Btw, any use of the return stack as a temporary holding place to help
juggle stack items is no different than using a local in terms of
factoring-ability.
This has all been discussed before and quite awhile ago:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Comp/comp.lang.forth/2008-03/msg00829.html
-Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-07 16:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87oaqaunjo.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #35538 |
Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> writes:
> Brodie's Thinking Forth has an example similar to your
> draw-rectangle. See chapter 7 [BOX].
Oh that's interesting. I may have first seen the example there. It's
been a while since I read that book but I've always been quite impressed
with it. I certainly don't claim to have come up with the example myself.
> This has all been discussed before and quite awhile ago:
> http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Comp/comp.lang.forth/2008-03/msg00829.html
Also interesting, thanks. I realize the most obvious implementation of
locals in a simple interpreter is to save them on a stack until they
leave scope, and if you do that, they can increase the memory footprint
compared to traditional Forth style where functions consume their stack
args. Still though I keep trying to figure out a way to code a
metacompiled Forth where the compiler understands locals and implements
them efficiently enough that they can be used to define the traditional
primitives:
: DUP { x } x x ;
: SWAP { x y } y x ;
: ROT { x y z } y z x ;
and so on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-08 14:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54ae8df1$0$6868$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #35574 |
In article <87oaqaunjo.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net>,
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> writes:
>> Brodie's Thinking Forth has an example similar to your
>> draw-rectangle. See chapter 7 [BOX].
>
>Oh that's interesting. I may have first seen the example there. It's
>been a while since I read that book but I've always been quite impressed
>with it. I certainly don't claim to have come up with the example myself.
>
>> This has all been discussed before and quite awhile ago:
>> http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Comp/comp.lang.forth/2008-03/msg00829.html
>
>Also interesting, thanks. I realize the most obvious implementation of
>locals in a simple interpreter is to save them on a stack until they
>leave scope, and if you do that, they can increase the memory footprint
>compared to traditional Forth style where functions consume their stack
>args. Still though I keep trying to figure out a way to code a
>metacompiled Forth where the compiler understands locals and implements
>them efficiently enough that they can be used to define the traditional
>primitives:
>
> : DUP { x } x x ;
> : SWAP { x y } y x ;
> : ROT { x y z } y z x ;
>
>and so on.
I'd say that could work with an optimiser.
I've been thinking about an alternative locals implementation would be
that the curly brackets give a name to stack items, and that it's
forbidden to reach under those items, then at the end they are nipped.
: DUP { x } x @ x @ ;
: SWAP { x y } y @ x @ ;
: ROT { x y z } y @ z @ x @ ;
With +; (don't nip, it becomes)
: DUP { x } x @ +;
: SWAP { x y } y @ x @ y ! x ! +;
: ROT { x y z } x @ z @ x ! z ! +;
(These are local variables, local values.)
A redeeming property of this system would be that
at entry (establishing the locals) nothing needs to be done.
: DROP ( x} ;
This would give a name to the top stack item, do nothing
with it then drop it.
It would be reentrant version of
: SWAP {{ VARIABLE x VARIABLE y }} y ! x ! y @ x @ ;
where {{ does nested compilation.
(But then, who needs locals?)
Groetjes Albert
P.S
(I presume you agree that these examples are unrealistic in the
sense that primitives are probably code words, otherwise there
is not standard words.)
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-08 09:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87k30xuqtv.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #35581 |
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
> that the curly brackets give a name to stack items...
> : DUP { x } x @ x @ ;
> : SWAP { x y } y @ x @ ; \ ...
> With +; (don't nip, it becomes) ...
That is kind of scary since it would seem to allow writing into the
stack:
: SWAP { x y } x @ y @ x ! y ! +; \ avoid the overhead of nipping
I do like the feature of gforth locals that you can introduce them
anywhere in your function.
Your idea seems like one of the easiest locals schemes to implement
though.
> : SWAP {{ VARIABLE x VARIABLE y }} y ! x ! y @ x @ ;
> where {{ does nested compilation.
Does your Forth have nested compilation? I've sometimes wanted to nest
definitions of words, but that's the Lisper in me.
Would the VARIABLEs defined there keep eating memory after the swap
returns?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-08 17:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54aec1fd$0$15847$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #35598 |
In article <87k30xuqtv.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net>,
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>> that the curly brackets give a name to stack items...
>> : DUP { x } x @ x @ ;
>> : SWAP { x y } y @ x @ ; \ ...
>> With +; (don't nip, it becomes) ...
>
>That is kind of scary since it would seem to allow writing into the
>stack:
>
> : SWAP { x y } x @ y @ x ! y ! +; \ avoid the overhead of nipping
>
>I do like the feature of gforth locals that you can introduce them
>anywhere in your function.
>
>Your idea seems like one of the easiest locals schemes to implement
>though.
It certainly doesn't pose insurmountable problems to implement.
Easier I couldn't say.
>
>> : SWAP {{ VARIABLE x VARIABLE y }} y ! x ! y @ x @ ;
>> where {{ does nested compilation.
>
>Does your Forth have nested compilation? I've sometimes wanted to nest
>definitions of words, but that's the Lisper in me.
I have implemented that once as an experiment, but do not supply it
in the release. I want to keep things balanced. If you go that way
other things would have to change too. In particular, this is actual
nested scopes, which would eliminate vocabularies and require to
access the local VARIABLES of SWAP via some means e.g.
'SWAP SSS X
Where SSS is pronounced 'sss' "tick SWAP sss X "
>
>Would the VARIABLEs defined there keep eating memory after the swap
>returns?
In ciforth they would eat 8 cells plus at least 2 cells for the name.
Say 64 bytes. Then they would also eat one cell for the data.
All this allocation happens at compile time, so "after the swap return"
made me hesitate to answer.
(It's a "Do you still beat your wife" question. )
Groetjes Albert
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-08 11:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87d26pumeq.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #35600 |
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: > In ciforth ... All this allocation happens at compile time, so "after > the swap return" made me hesitate to answer. (It's a "Do you still > beat your wife" question. ) In a desktop resident forth, a few dozen cells is inconsequential, so fine. I guess the static allocation per word is how Fortran worked historically, so it's at least a workable plan, even if later languages tend to use a stack for local variables.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-07 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8jpnb$d8m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35507 |
On 06/01/2015 16:41, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Really, all the practical Forth code I've looked at is full of stack
> manipulation that obviously took some concentration to write. Leaving
> that to the compiler frees up those mental cycles for more important
> things.
When writing mundane code there can be a tendency to not concentrate, a
bit like a sentry going to sleep because of boredom, leading to silly
mistakes e.g. ...
>
> Here's a classic example, where you want to draw a rectangle given the
> coordinates of its lower left and upper right corners. x y MOVE lifts
> the pen and puts it at location x,y while x y DRAW moves the pen
> to x,y without lifting it. Simple implementation:
>
> : draw-rectangle {: x0 y0 x1 y1 :}
> x0 y0 MOVE x0 y1 DRAW x1 y1 DRAW x1 y0 DRAW x0 y0 MOVE ;
>
... the last MOVE should be a DRAW
I take your point but I think a competent Forther would understand this
no-locals version
: draw-rectangle ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- )
2over move rot >r >r ( -- x0 x1 ) ( R: -- y0 y1 )
over r@ draw dup r> draw r@ draw r> draw
;
--
Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-07 09:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87vbkiv62o.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #35549 |
Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> writes: > I take your point but I think a competent Forther would understand > this no-locals version > > : draw-rectangle ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- ) > 2over move rot >r >r ( -- x0 x1 ) ( R: -- y0 y1 ) > over r@ draw dup r> draw r@ draw r> draw ; That's depressing ;-). It occurs to me, locals make Forth feel more Lisp-like. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. I know that Chuck liked Lisp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-08 09:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8liof$mqo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35553 |
On 07/01/2015 17:44, Paul Rubin wrote: > Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> writes: >> I take your point but I think a competent Forther would understand >> this no-locals version >> >> : draw-rectangle ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- ) >> 2over move rot >r >r ( -- x0 x1 ) ( R: -- y0 y1 ) >> over r@ draw dup r> draw r@ draw r> draw ; > > That's depressing ;-). Sorry I didn't mean to be rude, perhaps I should have said 'experienced Forther'. In the above definition there are only 3 words that are true stack noise (ROT >R >R) that position the parameters so that the last line is easy. Doesn't the stack comment on the second line make the last line easy to understand? > It occurs to me, locals make Forth feel more > Lisp-like. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. > I don't know enough about Lisp to comment on that. I've no argument against the use of locals when appropriate, it's the undisciplined or automatic use that should be avoided. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-11 03:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8sr5u0ml0@enews4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #35553 |
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
> > I take your point but I think a competent Forther would understand
> > this no-locals version
> >
> > : draw-rectangle ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- )
> > 2over move rot >r >r ( -- x0 x1 ) ( R: -- y0 y1 )
> > over r@ draw dup r> draw r@ draw r> draw ;
>
> That's depressing ;-). It occurs to me, locals make Forth feel more
> Lisp-like. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. I know that
> Chuck liked Lisp.
Gauche Scheme:
(use gauche.array)
(use srfi-42)
(define screen-width 79)
(define screen-height 30)
(define mid-x (div screen-width 2))
(define mid-y (div screen-height 2))
(define empty-char #\.)
(define point-char #\#)
(define screen
(make-array (shape 0 screen-width 0 screen-height) empty-char))
(define (clear-screen)
(array-map! screen (lambda _ empty-char) screen))
(define (show-screen)
(dotimes (y screen-height)
(dotimes (x screen-width)
(display (array-ref screen x y)))
(newline)))
(define (plot-point x y)
(let ((x (x->integer x))
(y (x->integer y)))
(array-set! screen x y point-char)))
(define (draw-slope x0 y0 x1 y1)
(let ((dx (- x1 x0)) (dy (- y1 y0)))
(if (> (abs dy) (abs dx))
(let ((ratio (/. dx dy)) (step (compare dy 0)))
(do-ec (: y y0 (+ y1 step) step)
(:let x (+ x0 (* (- y y0) ratio)))
(plot-point x y)))
(let ((ratio (/. dy dx)) (step (compare dx 0)))
(do-ec (: x x0 (+ x1 step) step)
(:let y (+ y0 (* (- x x0) ratio)))
(plot-point x y))))))
(use util.match)
(define draw-rectangle
(match-lambda* [(x0 y0 x1 y1)
(let run ((lst (list x0 y0 x0 y1 x1 y1 x1 y0 x0 y0)))
(when (> (length lst) 3)
(apply draw-slope (take lst 4))
(run (cddr lst))))]))
(let ((dx (div mid-x 2)) (dy (div mid-y 2)))
(draw-rectangle (- mid-x dx) (- mid-y dy) (+ mid-x dx) (+ mid-y dy)))
(let1 y (- screen-height 1)
(draw-slope mid-x 0 (- mid-x y) y)
(draw-slope mid-x 0 (+ mid-x y) y))
(show-screen)
.......................................#.......................................
......................................#.#......................................
.....................................#...#.....................................
....................................#.....#....................................
...................................#.......#...................................
..................................#.........#..................................
.................................#...........#.................................
................................#.............#................................
....................#######################################....................
....................#.........#.................#.........#....................
....................#........#...................#........#....................
....................#.......#.....................#.......#....................
....................#......#.......................#......#....................
....................#.....#.........................#.....#....................
....................#....#...........................#....#....................
....................#...#.............................#...#....................
....................#..#...............................#..#....................
....................#.#.................................#.#....................
....................##...................................##....................
....................#.....................................#....................
...................##.....................................##...................
..................#.#.....................................#.#..................
.................#..#######################################..#.................
................#.............................................#................
...............#...............................................#...............
..............#.................................................#..............
.............#...................................................#.............
............#.....................................................#............
...........#.......................................................#...........
..........#.........................................................#..........
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-07 15:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c53f4909-55a5-4ba4-afe8-6c1a16efe4a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35549 |
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 10:17:59 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 16:41, Paul Rubin wrote:
> > Really, all the practical Forth code I've looked at is full of stack
> > manipulation that obviously took some concentration to write. Leaving
> > that to the compiler frees up those mental cycles for more important
> > things.
>
> When writing mundane code there can be a tendency to not concentrate, a
> bit like a sentry going to sleep because of boredom, leading to silly
> mistakes e.g. ...
>
> >
> > Here's a classic example, where you want to draw a rectangle given the
> > coordinates of its lower left and upper right corners. x y MOVE lifts
> > the pen and puts it at location x,y while x y DRAW moves the pen
> > to x,y without lifting it. Simple implementation:
> >
> > : draw-rectangle {: x0 y0 x1 y1 :}
> > x0 y0 MOVE x0 y1 DRAW x1 y1 DRAW x1 y0 DRAW x0 y0 MOVE ;
> >
>
> ... the last MOVE should be a DRAW
>
> I take your point but I think a competent Forther would understand this
> no-locals version
>
> : draw-rectangle ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- )
> 2over move rot >r >r ( -- x0 x1 ) ( R: -- y0 y1 )
> over r@ draw dup r> draw r@ draw r> draw
> ;
I would use a struct like this:
0
w field x
w field y
constant point
I would also have structs representing common shapes like this:
0
point field a
point field b
constant line
If I were to write a function to find the intersection of two lines, it would look like this:
: intersection ( lineA lineB -- point )
... ;
Locals aren't really needed, because there are only two parameters, but they could be used to improve readability somewhat. My function that has only two parameters and one result, is a lot better than this:
: intersection ( x0 y0 x1 y1 x2 y2 x3 y3 -- x4 y4 )
... ;
Packing related data together into structs improves readability significantly --- but that is just me --- I'm not aware of anybody on comp.lang.forth who considers me to be a "competent Forther."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-07 18:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <642daf69-0fb3-45a6-9acd-dab922cc4026@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35572 |
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 4:21:34 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> I would use a struct like this:
>
> 0
> w field x
> w field y
> constant point
>
> I would also have structs representing common shapes like this:
>
> 0
> point field a
> point field b
> constant line
That is actually supposed to be:
0
w field .x
w field .y
constant point
0
point field .a
point field .b
constant line
Putting the . in front of field names is my naming convention.
Also, LINE could be defined like this:
0
w field .a
w field .b
constant line
I wouldn't bother with pointers in this case however, because the POINT struct is so small. Also, if I don't have any pointers, CLONE-NODE will work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-08 09:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8lj9g$p78$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35572 |
On 07/01/2015 23:21, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 10:17:59 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote:
>> On 06/01/2015 16:41, Paul Rubin wrote:
>>> Really, all the practical Forth code I've looked at is full of stack
>>> manipulation that obviously took some concentration to write. Leaving
>>> that to the compiler frees up those mental cycles for more important
>>> things.
>>
>> When writing mundane code there can be a tendency to not concentrate, a
>> bit like a sentry going to sleep because of boredom, leading to silly
>> mistakes e.g. ...
>>
>>>
>>> Here's a classic example, where you want to draw a rectangle given the
>>> coordinates of its lower left and upper right corners. x y MOVE lifts
>>> the pen and puts it at location x,y while x y DRAW moves the pen
>>> to x,y without lifting it. Simple implementation:
>>>
>>> : draw-rectangle {: x0 y0 x1 y1 :}
>>> x0 y0 MOVE x0 y1 DRAW x1 y1 DRAW x1 y0 DRAW x0 y0 MOVE ;
>>>
>>
>> ... the last MOVE should be a DRAW
>>
>> I take your point but I think a competent Forther would understand this
>> no-locals version
>>
>> : draw-rectangle ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- )
>> 2over move rot >r >r ( -- x0 x1 ) ( R: -- y0 y1 )
>> over r@ draw dup r> draw r@ draw r> draw
>> ;
>
> I would use a struct like this:
>
> 0
> w field x
> w field y
> constant point
>
> I would also have structs representing common shapes like this:
>
> 0
> point field a
> point field b
> constant line
>
> If I were to write a function to find the intersection of two lines, it would look like this:
>
> : intersection ( lineA lineB -- point )
> ... ;
>
> Locals aren't really needed, because there are only two parameters, but they could be used to improve readability somewhat. My function that has only two parameters and one result, is a lot better than this:
>
> : intersection ( x0 y0 x1 y1 x2 y2 x3 y3 -- x4 y4 )
> ... ;
>
> Packing related data together into structs improves readability significantly --- but that is just me ---
>
I doubt that it's just you. Were I to write a graphics package I would
use similar techniques (probably using mini-oof) as would others. (Even
Alex might agree but probably couldn't bring himself to say so :-). Just
because I pointed out a pure stack solution doesn't mean that I agree
with the interface of Paul's DRAW-RECTANGLE.
> I'm not aware of anybody on comp.lang.forth who considers me to be a
> "competent Forther."
I also doubt that you can't or find it difficult to understand my
definition of DRAW-RECTANGLE.
--
Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-08 14:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8m5ch$4lb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35578 |
on 08/01/2015 09:40:53, Gerry Jackson wrote:
> On 07/01/2015 23:21, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 10:17:59 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote:
>>> On 06/01/2015 16:41, Paul Rubin wrote:
>>>> Really, all the practical Forth code I've looked at is full of stack
>>>> manipulation that obviously took some concentration to write. Leaving
>>>> that to the compiler frees up those mental cycles for more important
>>>> things.
>>>
>>> When writing mundane code there can be a tendency to not concentrate, a
>>> bit like a sentry going to sleep because of boredom, leading to silly
>>> mistakes e.g. ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's a classic example, where you want to draw a rectangle given the
>>>> coordinates of its lower left and upper right corners. x y MOVE lifts
>>>> the pen and puts it at location x,y while x y DRAW moves the pen
>>>> to x,y without lifting it. Simple implementation:
>>>>
>>>> : draw-rectangle {: x0 y0 x1 y1 :}
>>>> x0 y0 MOVE x0 y1 DRAW x1 y1 DRAW x1 y0 DRAW x0 y0 MOVE ;
>>>>
>>>
>>> ... the last MOVE should be a DRAW
>>>
>>> I take your point but I think a competent Forther would understand this
>>> no-locals version
>>>
>>> : draw-rectangle ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- )
>>> 2over move rot >r >r ( -- x0 x1 ) ( R: -- y0 y1 )
>>> over r@ draw dup r> draw r@ draw r> draw
>>> ;
>>
>> I would use a struct like this:
>>
>> 0
>> w field x
>> w field y
>> constant point
>>
>> I would also have structs representing common shapes like this:
>>
>> 0
>> point field a
>> point field b
>> constant line
>>
>> If I were to write a function to find the intersection of two lines, it would look like this:
>>
>> : intersection ( lineA lineB -- point )
>> ... ;
>>
>> Locals aren't really needed, because there are only two parameters, but they could be used to improve readability somewhat. My function that has only two parameters and one result, is a lot
better than this:
>>
>> : intersection ( x0 y0 x1 y1 x2 y2 x3 y3 -- x4 y4 )
>> ... ;
>>
>> Packing related data together into structs improves readability significantly --- but that is just me ---
>>
>
> I doubt that it's just you. Were I to write a graphics package I would
> use similar techniques (probably using mini-oof) as would others.
> (Even Alex might agree but probably couldn't bring himself to say so
> :-). Just because I pointed out a pure stack solution doesn't mean
> that I agree with the interface of Paul's DRAW-RECTANGLE.
Alex does agree; with the caveats that
1. The indirection may be expensive on some platforms. For example, x y z
MOVE instead of x P.X ! y P.Y ! z P.Z ! P MOVE is both long winded and
potentially inefficient.
2. Structs typically, unlike objects, do not have private variables. P.X
P.Y and P.Z are therefore just global variables. Using global variables
as implicit parameters is something I avoid at all costs; I am not a fan
of structs, and don't use them if they can be reasonably avoided. Objects
are a better mechanism, especially for graphics.
Even Hugh recgnises that globals are a bad thing; he says so a few posts
away from here in one of his usual and interminable rants against
Elizabeth Rather.
>
> > I'm not aware of anybody on comp.lang.forth who considers me to be a
> > "competent Forther."
>
> I also doubt that you can't or find it difficult to understand my
> definition of DRAW-RECTANGLE.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web