Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #48645 > unrolled thread
| Started by | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-01 16:10 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-08-12 11:05 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 151 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
3rd RfD: Quotations anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-01 16:10 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-01 11:21 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 11:58 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-01 12:53 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 16:05 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-01 19:00 -0500
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-01 18:22 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-01 21:16 -0500
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Wasell <from_usenet@wasell.eu> - 2016-07-02 13:04 +0200
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-02 09:39 -0500
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-07-02 16:33 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-02 11:50 -0500
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 10:45 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 19:24 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-07-03 11:48 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-03 07:08 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 11:49 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-04 08:25 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-04 16:57 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-07-05 07:40 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-05 01:38 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations alex@rivadpm.com - 2016-07-05 01:33 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-05 02:28 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 10:06 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-07-05 20:57 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 00:12 +0300
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-07-05 22:45 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 10:50 +0300
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-06 03:31 -0500
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-08 09:07 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-07-04 21:08 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-04 09:10 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-07-02 19:24 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 16:19 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 23:18 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 21:54 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 03:10 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-07-03 09:35 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 19:19 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-03 01:45 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 11:52 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 19:10 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-02 13:27 -1000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 16:54 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 23:27 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-08-05 00:30 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-07-08 21:15 +1000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-08 07:39 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-07-09 17:08 +1000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-08 23:22 -1000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-07-08 20:42 +1000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-07-01 21:51 +0100
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-01 17:57 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-01 18:47 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 07:55 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-04 17:03 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations alex@rivadpm.com - 2016-07-05 01:38 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 10:16 -0400
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-05 10:48 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-07-05 20:18 +0200
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-08-05 00:42 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2016-08-04 19:44 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-06 21:01 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-07 07:54 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-08 08:17 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-08 08:41 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 10:21 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-08 14:29 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-08 22:28 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-09 03:56 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-09 09:51 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-13 01:25 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-13 01:56 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-13 02:09 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-13 14:04 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 00:32 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 01:25 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:52 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 20:25 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 12:46 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 14:38 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 16:03 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 17:27 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-14 02:46 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 08:33 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 16:59 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 23:30 -0700
Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-16 02:42 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 05:47 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-07-16 15:41 +0200
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-16 07:16 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-16 07:27 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 09:52 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-16 11:46 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 03:11 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 03:18 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 03:47 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-17 05:43 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 06:00 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 08:32 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 23:49 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 00:39 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 07:57 -0700
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-07-18 12:18 +0200
Re: Universal Delimiters - was Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 04:04 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 21:23 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-07-09 14:30 +0200
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations mhx@iae.nl - 2016-07-09 05:51 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-09 09:01 -0500
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-09 07:40 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-09 12:27 -0500
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-09 11:24 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-30 02:03 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-09 14:36 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Håkan Thörngren <hth313@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 12:58 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 21:59 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-09 23:11 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 00:14 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 01:06 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-12 05:31 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 09:00 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-13 03:44 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-13 11:36 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-13 23:03 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 01:23 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-12 08:57 -1000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 22:53 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 01:09 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-10 18:18 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-11 01:35 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 18:18 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 08:24 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-10 06:53 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Håkan Thörngren <hth313@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 00:53 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-10 16:57 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 02:26 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-10 06:49 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 11:04 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-10 12:51 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 13:21 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 13:23 -0700
3rd RfD: Quotations anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-28 16:56 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-28 16:29 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-29 00:50 +0000
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-11 12:15 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:25 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-11 20:57 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:59 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-11 21:11 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 00:30 -0700
Re: 3rd RfD: Quotations hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 11:05 -0700
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 11:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nlbcc3$mio$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48741 |
On 7/3/2016 4:45 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:19:12 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: >> The guy is seriously deranged. I don't think he is dangerous, but if I >> were Ms Rather, I would avoid getting within a hundred miles of his home >> town. She has already been attacked by one loony and doesn't need to be >> harassed by another. BTW, when the attack was reported here I seem to >> recall Hugh rejoicing in the news. Or maybe he made a comment that the >> attacker should have been more successful? I don't recall the details, >> but his response showed how Hugh is off his nut. > > Rickman is lying --- I did not rejoice in the news of the assassination attempt on Elizabeth Rather --- he is hedging by saying that he doesn't recall the details, but that doesn't change the fact that he is lying. > > What happened is that Elizabeth Rather was on comp.lang.forth bragging about how she was suing Apple Computer because they used the name "Swift" for their new language (is is Apple's answer to Google's Go language, with support for multi-core computers). Soon thereafter, there was an assassination attempt on Elizabeth Rather at her condo in Oahu Hawaii. It was obviously a professional job, as the would-be assassin got paid to do it. Elizabeth Rather left Hawaii immediately afterward. Most likely the police told her that she had to leave because they couldn't protect her from further assassination attempts, and because assassination attempts are a public-relations disaster for Hawaii. Also, Elizabeth Rather stopped bragging about her lawsuit against Apple Computer --- we haven't heard any more about that since then! > > I certainly wasn't rejoicing over what happened --- I don't want to see anybody get killed --- also, what happened was a huge embarrassment for the Forth community. > > I was trying to save Elizabeth Rather's life by encouraging her to drop the lawsuit. It seems like easy money, but there are risks involved. She most likely was suing for some huge sum, such as a million dollars, and was hoping that Apple Computer would settle out of court for a small sum, such as $10,000, because their legal fees would be over $10,000 if they took it to court so it would be less expensive to just pay her off. What she wasn't considering is that Apple Computer can have her killed for $10,000 --- that is another option for them. Realistically, Apple Computer can't pay off a bogus lawsuit such as this because doing so sets a precedent, and pretty soon every sociopath in America is filing a million-dollar lawsuit against Apple Computer expecting to get $10,000 apiece. It is more monetarily efficient for Apple Computer to kill the first sociopath who tries this lawsuit stunt, and let that be a warning to all of the other sociopaths in America who are thinking about filing a bogus lawsuit. > > I don't actually know that it was Apple Computer who paid for the assassination attempt on Elizabeth Rather. It is possible that Elizabeth Rather has multiple lawsuits going on simultaneously against multiple deep-pocket targets. Also, Forth Inc. sells bug-ridden code and they don't give the customer a refund when the customer complains. There may be dozens of people around who have a motivation to kill Elizabeth Rather --- so, I wouldn't say that it necessarily was Apple Computer --- it just seems likely because she was bragging about the lawsuit against Apple Computer just prior to the assassination attempt. Wow! Does anyone need further evidence that Hugh is a nut job? I especially like the part about how Hugh tried to "save Elizabeth Rather's life". You can't make this stuff up! -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 19:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nl9hl3$lr7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48666 |
On 7/1/2016 8:00 PM, Cecil Bayona wrote:
> On 7/1/2016 3:05 PM, rickman wrote:
>> On 7/1/2016 3:53 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 11:58:54 AM UTC-7, Julian Fondren wrote:
>>>> SwiftForth implements almost nothing from Forth-200x.
>>>> ...
>>>> Now that I've told you that, do you think that it's odd?
>>>
>>> Forth-200x is mandated to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth. This
>>> means that no SwiftForth legacy code gets broken. It doesn't really
>>> matter what features get added to Forth-200x and do not get supported
>>> by SwiftForth, because SwiftForth will still be considered to be
>>> Forth-200x compliant --- if you write a Forth-200x program fails to
>>> work under SwiftForth, you will be blamed for writing a non-standard
>>> program --- this is the same as now with ANS-Forth; for example, if
>>> you write a program that assumes that the control-stack is distinct
>>> from the data-stack (legal in ANS-Forth) your program will not work
>>> under SwiftForth and you will get blamed for writing a non-standard
>>> program.
>>>
>>> The only "legacy code" that the Forth-200x committee cares about is
>>> SwiftForth legacy code. For about a quarter of a century, going back
>>> to a time prior to the existence of ANS-Forth, all the Forthers have
>>> used { to define local variables (the John Hopkins Format). There is a
>>> lot of legacy code that uses { for local variables. At Forth Inc.
>>> however, { is used for multi-line comments. Because of this,
>>> Forth-200x couldn't use { for defining locals and had to invent a new
>>> name {: instead. The breaks pretty much all of the Forth code that
>>> uses local, including ANS-Forth code, written in the last quarter of a
>>> century --- except for the SwiftForth code that continues to use { to
>>> define multi-line comments --- in SwiftForth version-2, (LOCAL) would
>>> crash the system when used; the fact that this bug got put in a
>>> production release indicates that nobody at Forth Inc. ever tested
>>> (LOCAL) at all, which indicates that there is no Forth Inc. legacy
>>> code that uses locals.
>>>
>>> Elizabeth Rather doesn't want to use locals, and she doesn't want the
>>> rest of the Forth community to use locals either. Here is a quote from
>>> her:
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I hate locals :-)
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Now that I've told you that, do you think that it's odd?
>>
>> Don't you guys get it? You are not dealing with a rational entity here.
>> It is sad since Hugh is obviously very intelligent and could be capable
>> of doing a lot with and for Forth. But his mental illness prevents this
>> from ever happening.
>>
>> I don't know much about psychology really, but I know Hugh is clearly
>> off the tracks. I wonder if there is a medication that might help him?
>> I bet there is no way he could ever be convinced to get help though.
>>
> So how about you explain what he said that is crazy? No free passes,
> give the details.
How about "The only "legacy code" that the Forth-200x committee cares
about is SwiftForth legacy code."
But in general Hugh has a hardon for the conspiracy theory thing of Ms
Rather controlling everything Forth. If you haven't seen this yet, you
must not be reading his posts. This post is a direct reflection of that.
--
Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 13:27 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <f8SdneLniq1S0OXKnZ2dnUU7-IXNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #48719 |
On 7/2/16 1:10 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 7/1/2016 8:00 PM, Cecil Bayona wrote:
>> On 7/1/2016 3:05 PM, rickman wrote:
>>> On 7/1/2016 3:53 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 11:58:54 AM UTC-7, Julian Fondren wrote:
>>>>> SwiftForth implements almost nothing from Forth-200x.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Now that I've told you that, do you think that it's odd?
>>>>
>>>> Forth-200x is mandated to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth. This
>>>> means that no SwiftForth legacy code gets broken. It doesn't really
>>>> matter what features get added to Forth-200x and do not get supported
>>>> by SwiftForth, because SwiftForth will still be considered to be
>>>> Forth-200x compliant --- if you write a Forth-200x program fails to
>>>> work under SwiftForth, you will be blamed for writing a non-standard
>>>> program --- this is the same as now with ANS-Forth; for example, if
>>>> you write a program that assumes that the control-stack is distinct
>>>> from the data-stack (legal in ANS-Forth) your program will not work
>>>> under SwiftForth and you will get blamed for writing a non-standard
>>>> program.
>>>>
>>>> The only "legacy code" that the Forth-200x committee cares about is
>>>> SwiftForth legacy code. For about a quarter of a century, going back
>>>> to a time prior to the existence of ANS-Forth, all the Forthers have
>>>> used { to define local variables (the John Hopkins Format). There is a
>>>> lot of legacy code that uses { for local variables. At Forth Inc.
>>>> however, { is used for multi-line comments. Because of this,
>>>> Forth-200x couldn't use { for defining locals and had to invent a new
>>>> name {: instead. The breaks pretty much all of the Forth code that
>>>> uses local, including ANS-Forth code, written in the last quarter of a
>>>> century --- except for the SwiftForth code that continues to use { to
>>>> define multi-line comments --- in SwiftForth version-2, (LOCAL) would
>>>> crash the system when used; the fact that this bug got put in a
>>>> production release indicates that nobody at Forth Inc. ever tested
>>>> (LOCAL) at all, which indicates that there is no Forth Inc. legacy
>>>> code that uses locals.
>>>>
>>>> Elizabeth Rather doesn't want to use locals, and she doesn't want the
>>>> rest of the Forth community to use locals either. Here is a quote from
>>>> her:
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I hate locals :-)
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now that I've told you that, do you think that it's odd?
>>>
>>> Don't you guys get it? You are not dealing with a rational entity here.
>>> It is sad since Hugh is obviously very intelligent and could be capable
>>> of doing a lot with and for Forth. But his mental illness prevents this
>>> from ever happening.
>>>
>>> I don't know much about psychology really, but I know Hugh is clearly
>>> off the tracks. I wonder if there is a medication that might help him?
>>> I bet there is no way he could ever be convinced to get help though.
>>>
>> So how about you explain what he said that is crazy? No free passes,
>> give the details.
>
> How about "The only "legacy code" that the Forth-200x committee cares
> about is SwiftForth legacy code."
>
> But in general Hugh has a hardon for the conspiracy theory thing of Ms
> Rather controlling everything Forth. If you haven't seen this yet, you
> must not be reading his posts. This post is a direct reflection of that.
>
Every implementer with a user base cares about legacy code. That is
actually one of the considerations that all standards committees lists
as an important consideration. FORTH, Inc. is by no means the only
implementer that has a large user base with extensive amounts of legacy
code.
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 | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 16:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5b57ad4-f8ce-4668-a6fb-5b235f8e7cef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48723 |
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:27:16 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 7/2/16 1:10 PM, rickman wrote:
> > On 7/1/2016 8:00 PM, Cecil Bayona wrote:
> >> So how about you explain what he said that is crazy? No free passes,
> >> give the details.
> >
> > How about "The only "legacy code" that the Forth-200x committee cares
> > about is SwiftForth legacy code."
> >
> > But in general Hugh has a hardon for the conspiracy theory thing of Ms
> > Rather controlling everything Forth. If you haven't seen this yet, you
> > must not be reading his posts. This post is a direct reflection of that.
>
> Every implementer with a user base cares about legacy code. That is
> actually one of the considerations that all standards committees lists
> as an important consideration. FORTH, Inc. is by no means the only
> implementer that has a large user base with extensive amounts of legacy
> code.
This is what I actually said:
On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 12:53:16 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> The only "legacy code" that the Forth-200x committee cares about is SwiftForth legacy code. For about a quarter of a century, going back to a time prior to the existence of ANS-Forth, all the Forthers have used { to define local variables (the John Hopkins Format). There is a lot of legacy code that uses { for local variables. At Forth Inc. however, { is used for multi-line comments. Because of this, Forth-200x couldn't use { for defining locals and had to invent a new name {: instead. The breaks pretty much all of the Forth code that uses local, including ANS-Forth code, written in the last quarter of a century --- except for the SwiftForth code that continues to use { to define multi-line comments --- in SwiftForth version-2, (LOCAL) would crash the system when used; the fact that this bug got put in a production release indicates that nobody at Forth Inc. ever tested (LOCAL) at all, which indicates that there is no Forth Inc. legacy code that uses locals.
It is certainly true that "FORTH, Inc. is by no means the only implementer that has a large user base with extensive amounts of legacy code." It is also true that all Forth programmers legacy code uses { for defining local variables (the John Hopkins Format) going back about a quarter of a century --- all of that legacy code is broken by Forth-200x switching to {: to define locals.
Also, it is true that Forth-200x is mandated to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth. None of the Forth-200x committee members deny this.
Also, it is certainly true that Elizabeth Rather appoints the Forth-200x committee members, and that most if not all of the committee members work for Forth Inc. (Stephen Pelc does "joint projects" with Forth Inc., Andrew Haley is an employee of Forth Inc., etc.). None of the Forth-200x committee members deny this.
This is not a "conspiracy theory" --- all of this is well known.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 23:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nla0mt$riv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48724 |
On 7/2/2016 7:54 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:27:16 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
>> On 7/2/16 1:10 PM, rickman wrote:
>>> On 7/1/2016 8:00 PM, Cecil Bayona wrote:
>>>> So how about you explain what he said that is crazy? No free passes,
>>>> give the details.
>>>
>>> How about "The only "legacy code" that the Forth-200x committee cares
>>> about is SwiftForth legacy code."
>>>
>>> But in general Hugh has a hardon for the conspiracy theory thing of Ms
>>> Rather controlling everything Forth. If you haven't seen this yet, you
>>> must not be reading his posts. This post is a direct reflection of that.
>>
>> Every implementer with a user base cares about legacy code. That is
>> actually one of the considerations that all standards committees lists
>> as an important consideration. FORTH, Inc. is by no means the only
>> implementer that has a large user base with extensive amounts of legacy
>> code.
>
> This is what I actually said:
> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 12:53:16 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The only "legacy code" that the Forth-200x committee cares about is SwiftForth legacy code. For about a quarter of a century, going back to a time prior to the existence of ANS-Forth, all the Forthers have used { to define local variables (the John Hopkins Format). There is a lot of legacy code that uses { for local variables. At Forth Inc. however, { is used for multi-line comments. Because of this, Forth-200x couldn't use { for defining locals and had to invent a new name {: instead. The breaks pretty much all of the Forth code that uses local, including ANS-Forth code, written in the last quarter of a century --- except for the SwiftForth code that continues to use { to define multi-line comments --- in SwiftForth version-2, (LOCAL) would crash the system when used; the fact that this bug got put in a production release indicates that nobody at Forth Inc. ever tested (LOCAL) at all, which indicates that there is no Forth Inc. legacy code that uses locals.
>
> It is certainly true that "FORTH, Inc. is by no means the only implementer that has a large user base with extensive amounts of legacy code." It is also true that all Forth programmers legacy code uses { for defining local variables (the John Hopkins Format) going back about a quarter of a century --- all of that legacy code is broken by Forth-200x switching to {: to define locals.
>
> Also, it is true that Forth-200x is mandated to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth. None of the Forth-200x committee members deny this.
>
> Also, it is certainly true that Elizabeth Rather appoints the Forth-200x committee members, and that most if not all of the committee members work for Forth Inc. (Stephen Pelc does "joint projects" with Forth Inc., Andrew Haley is an employee of Forth Inc., etc.). None of the Forth-200x committee members deny this.
>
> This is not a "conspiracy theory" --- all of this is well known.
One of those well-known secret fables?
Hugh is totally bug fucking nuts.
--
Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 00:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <no0mn9$ms7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48723 |
Am Sat, 02 Jul 2016 13:27:09 -1000 schrieb Elizabeth D. Rather:
> Every implementer with a user base cares about legacy code. That is
> actually one of the considerations that all standards committees lists
> as an important consideration. FORTH, Inc. is by no means the only
> implementer that has a large user base with extensive amounts of legacy
> code.
Actually, we care way too much about legacy code of too many people. We
had a number of things that were de facto standards, and during the
proposals we discovered that someone used this or that before slightly
differently. One time it was Forth Inc., using { and } for multi-line
comments instead of doing locals like everybody else did. So we decided
to use these Wilhelm II. mustache and Donald Trump wig smileys {: :}...
or the & prefix, which has been used for decimal notation for quite some
time; someone used that for character literals... and we had to use #.
We can do this, because the Forth community is relatively small. If it
was considerably larger, there would be nothing left to standardize
upon. I can somehow see a reason why the C community started to break
non-standard programs. The legitimate reason for that is that if you
want to standardize on something without using ridiculous names, you may
have to step on someone's toe. If you use something non-standard, you
can't be sure it will be there forever. It might be that the standard
will use the word/syntax for something else. The C people abuse that
spirit, but that part wouldn't be completely insane.
SwiftForth hasn't implemented the Trump-Wilhelm pair {: :} yet (29-
June-2016 eval version). VFX (supported { } for ages) and Gforth (same)
have implemented it. If you are not interested, say so, it is optional,
you don't need to implement it. But then, your use is not colliding with
the rest of the world's use.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 21:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlo1s4$rqn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #48661 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> At Forth Inc.
> however, { is used for multi-line comments. Because of this, Forth-200x couldn't use {
> for defining locals and had to invent a new name {: instead.
You have to give Forth Inc credit for knowing how to play chess. Here they had {
- an unassuming function which had exactly the same flaws as ( when it came
to comments - and they used it to block MPE's move on locals. Brilliant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e93a60fa-6eb3-4245-ab92-e1d8d37efa2c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48944 |
On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 4:13:12 AM UTC-7, HAA wrote:
> hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> > ...
> > At Forth Inc.
> > however, { is used for multi-line comments. Because of this, Forth-200x couldn't use {
> > for defining locals and had to invent a new name {: instead.
>
> You have to give Forth Inc credit for knowing how to play chess. Here they had {
> - an unassuming function which had exactly the same flaws as ( when it came
> to comments - and they used it to block MPE's move on locals. Brilliant.
Well, using { to define locals was invented at John Hopkins University --- not at MPE --- but everybody in the Forth community including MPE did adopt this sometime in the early 1990s (prior to ANS-Forth).
The chess analogy is pretty good --- even if a person doesn't know how to play chess, the person will understand that it is a battle between two opponents and only one of them can win --- in this case, the two opponents are Forth Inc. and the Forth community.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-09 17:08 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlq7ol$1luq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #48951 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 4:13:12 AM UTC-7, HAA wrote:
> > hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> > > ...
> > > At Forth Inc.
> > > however, { is used for multi-line comments. Because of this, Forth-200x couldn't
> > > use { for defining locals and had to invent a new name {: instead.
> >
> > You have to give Forth Inc credit for knowing how to play chess. Here they had {
> > - an unassuming function which had exactly the same flaws as ( when it came
> > to comments - and they used it to block MPE's move on locals. Brilliant.
>
> Well, using { to define locals was invented at John Hopkins University --- not at MPE
> --- but everybody in the Forth community including MPE did adopt this sometime in the
> early 1990s (prior to ANS-Forth).
Certainly not "everybody". LOCALS| came from Creative Solutions a prominent
vendor at the time. Power matters.
> The chess analogy is pretty good --- even if a person doesn't know how to play chess,
> the person will understand that it is a battle between two opponents and only one of
> them can win --- in this case, the two opponents are Forth Inc. and the Forth
> community.
There are two vendors of any note left - Forth Inc and MPE. They're not going
to sit back and let others tell them what to do. The "Forth community" isn't a
consideration and never has been. If MPE didn't have { and hated it, it's a sure
bet it would never have gotten anywhere in 200x.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 23:22 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <2cydnQkPqaunXx3KnZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #48978 |
On 7/8/16 9:08 PM, HAA wrote:
> hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 4:13:12 AM UTC-7, HAA wrote:
>>> hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> At Forth Inc.
>>>> however, { is used for multi-line comments. Because of this, Forth-200x couldn't
>>>> use { for defining locals and had to invent a new name {: instead.
>>>
>>> You have to give Forth Inc credit for knowing how to play chess. Here they had {
>>> - an unassuming function which had exactly the same flaws as ( when it came
>>> to comments - and they used it to block MPE's move on locals. Brilliant.
>>
>> Well, using { to define locals was invented at John Hopkins University --- not at MPE
>> --- but everybody in the Forth community including MPE did adopt this sometime in the
>> early 1990s (prior to ANS-Forth).
>
> Certainly not "everybody". LOCALS| came from Creative Solutions a prominent
> vendor at the time. Power matters.
More importantly, experience matters. When there's a body of existing
practice behind a concept, it's far more likely to get a receptive hearing.
>> The chess analogy is pretty good --- even if a person doesn't know how to play chess,
>> the person will understand that it is a battle between two opponents and only one of
>> them can win --- in this case, the two opponents are Forth Inc. and the Forth
>> community.
>
> There are two vendors of any note left - Forth Inc and MPE. They're not going
> to sit back and let others tell them what to do. The "Forth community" isn't a
> consideration and never has been. If MPE didn't have { and hated it, it's a sure
> bet it would never have gotten anywhere in 200x.
The "Forth Community" has always been a strong consideration, including
not only professional vendors like FORTH, Inc. and MPE (who have
collaborated on projects and have never been hostile competitors) but
also implementer of systems in widespread use such as GForth and
Win32Forth and FIG back in the day, not to mention Open Firmware, which
contributed several great concepts to ANS Forth. Experience and a user
base count for a lot. Individual bright ideas are a good thing, but as
candidates for standardization they become more valuable when they have
been shared and picked up by others and developed a body of users.
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 | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 20:42 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nlnvta$onn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #48656 |
Julian Fondren wrote: > On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 1:21:26 PM UTC-5, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > > Forth-200x is astro-turf --- this is just a marketing gimmick from Forth Inc. that is > > being faked up to look like a grass-roots effort from the Forth community. > > > > You've used a few modern Forth systems now. Why don't you take a look > at Forth-200x features, and write them down in a table, and then see > which of your systems implements them in the latest stable release? > This can be a nice research project for clf. > > Before you do so, please keep this question in mind: if Forth-200x were > some kind of Forth, Inc. marketing ploy, would it be odd for SwiftForth > to not implement all of the new features? Or even just a few. Other than TRAVERSE-WORDLIST I couldn't see anything else adopted from 200x. If Forth Inc is unwilling to implement 200x recommendations then you have to wonder what they're doing on the committee.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 21:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nl6l3v$jtq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48648 |
On 01/07/16 19:21, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > If you list my name as a contributor to Forth-200x I will sue you for libel.. I said this before when Alex McDonald listed my name in the RfD, and so he removed it, but now you have put it back in again. > > I am not playing around --- I will seriously sue you for a lot of money, and I will win. > Libel is "(1)a published false statement (2)that is damaging to a person's reputation" There are two parts to be proven. Concentrate on finding the "published false statement", because the second requirement will be easy to demonstrate. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 17:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4005c3f8-59fb-46ad-8428-1376ccd61399@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48645 |
On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 9:13:35 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote:
> The present proposal does not propose that a quotation can access the
> locals of a containing definition, because the implementation would be
> relatively complex, impose a run-time overhead, and the lifetime of
> the locals would be restricted (unless we are willing to accept
> further complexity). While there are a number of people who are very
> keen to have such a feature, it is not clear how much it would be
> used. System implementors are encouraged to provide support for
> accessing outer locals on an experimental basis so that programmers
> can explore the usefulness of this feature, possibly resulting in a
> proposal for this feature in the future.
We had this thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/EuroForth$202016/comp.lang.forth/D0PmblPgthM/iyZvwPgoDwAJ
Here I described the 5 principles of Straight Forth, which would be an alternate Standard used instead of ANS-Forth or Forth-200x. Straight Forth would be developed by Forth programmers --- I would not allow corporate sales-people such as Elizabeth Rather to have any input --- so long as the 5 principles are followed however, then people can make whatever they want of Straight Forth; I want input from the Forth community so Straight Forth actually is a grass-roots effort. Discussion of Straight Forth can start in that thread listed above --- these 5 principles are all in contradiction to ANS-Forth --- does anybody find fault with any of the 5 principles though?
Here is one of the 5 principles:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3.) Quotations. My system with the fat-xt will be used to allow quotations to access the parent function's local variables. This is trivial to implement! This is the foundation to writing general-purpose data-structures --- I really see this as bring Forth into the 21st century --- make it comparable to the other desktop-computer language such as Lisp --- unlike Lisp though, we will not have garbage-collection or tagged data (we will not have Dynamic-OOP). The emphasis will still be on speed, and Dynamic-OOP is a dog, so leave that to the script kiddies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Straight Forth has a 64-bit cell, but has 32-bit addresses. This means that there is plenty of room in an xt for both the 32-bit cfa of the quotation and the 32-bit pointer to the parent function's local-frame. This is not "relatively complex" nor does it "impose a run-time overhead" --- this is super-simple!
In the meantime, we have the LFT (local-fall-through) method that can be used in various ANS-Forth systems (it is not ANS-Forth compliant however).
HumptyDumpty wrote this code for gForth:
: rexit ( -- ) RDROP ;
: (r:) ( -- r ) R@ 0 ;
: r[ ( -- r ) postpone (r:) postpone IF ; immediate
: ]r ( -- ) postpone REXIT postpone THEN ; immediate
: rex ( r -- ) >R -1 ; \ HumptyDumpty called this RCALL
I modified it slightly for VFX:
: rexit ( -- ) rdrop ;
: (r:) ( -- r ) r@ 5 + ; \ 5 is the size of a JMP instruction in 32-bit x86
: r[ ( -- r ) postpone (r:) postpone ahead ; immediate
: ]r ( -- ) postpone rexit postpone then ; immediate
code rex ( r -- ) \ HumptyDumpty called this RCALL
push edi \ this is the HOF's LF which won't be used by the quotation
mov edi, 0 [edi] \ this is the parent's LF which will be used by the quotation
call ' execute
pop edi \ restore HOF's LF
next, end-code
My version allows the HOF to have local variables (in HumptyDumpty's version the HOF was not allowed to have local variables). The rules are:
1.) The HOF must have local variables (not optional).
2.) REX is used to execute a quotation and can only be used inside of a HOF.
3.) A HOF can not call another HOF directly.
The purpose of quotations is to allow Forth to have general-purpose data-structures. Typically there will be a HOF provided that traverses the data-structure and executes a quotation for every node in the data-structure. The parent function defines a quotation and then calls the HOF giving the HOF the quotation xt as a parameter. The HOF executes the quotation for each struct in the data-structure, giving the quotation the address of the struct as a parameter. The quotation communicates information back to the parent function by storing this data in the parent function's locals.
Here is an example of a singly-linked-list:
0
w field .fore \ .FORE will be fast because it is in the front
constant list
Here is a HOF for the LIST data-structure:
: each { head 'quotation -- }
head begin dup while
dup .fore @ >r \ -- node \ return: -- next-node
'quotation rex \ -- \ the quotation consumes the node adr
r> repeat drop ;
This is very similar to EACH that I have in the novice-package. The difference being that here the quotation has access to the locals in the parent function. In the novice-package, there were no quotations --- the xt being passed in was either of a colon word or of a :NONAME word --- it had to communicate back to the parent function by modifying the data on the data-stack put there by the parent function prior to calling EACH.
The Paysan-faked quotations which are promoted in Anton Ertl's RfD (formerly Alex McDonald's RfD) work exactly the same way as what I have in the novice-package already --- they are just syntactic sugar --- they provide no features that I'm not already providing in the novice-package (the novice-package is written in ANS-Forth as are the Paysan-faked quotations).
The reason why Anton Ertl is promoting the Paysan-faked quotations in his RfD is because Leon Wagner has told him that Forth-200x has to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth. Leon Wagner demands that everything put in Forth-200x can be implemented trivially (less than one hour of programming effort) in SwiftForth --- this is so SwiftForth can continue to be the Standard with little or no effort from the Forth Inc. programming staff (afaik, Leon Wagner is the only programmer at Forth Inc., and all of the other employees are sales-people).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 18:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d61a9f59-0c1f-42e6-82a5-1b608188dcfb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48645 |
On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 9:13:35 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote:
> References
> ----------
>
> Stephen Pelc wrote this; see
>
> http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Comp/comp.lang.forth/2012-07/msg00791.html
>
> I (Alex McDonald) have taken it and modified it as a proposed RfD,
> and have removed the discussion of closures. http://www.forth200x.org/
>
> I (Anton Ertl) have taken it and revised it.
This RfD is pretty much a line-by-line copy of Stephen Pelc's article cited above.
I read the article and Stephen has this comment at the end:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe we first need a convincing example of the usefulness of
quotations and closures.
Aside from looking obscure and clever and satisfying the "[x]
can do it, why not Forth?" test, what on earth does this buy you?
What does a closure achieve that cannot be achieved by other
scoping and persistence mechanisms such as a class and an object
with heap allocation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is an interesting thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/Ts2pToYJO2A%5B101-125%5D
Here we find out that Stephen Pelc does not support singly-linked lists as a general-purpose data-structure. He hand-writes the code for traversing lists every time. He does not have anything like EACH that I described above. Yet, at the same time, he is writing this article in which he says: "Maybe we first need a convincing example of the usefulness of quotations and closures."
Note also that Stephen doesn't know the difference between a quotation and a closure. In Lisp, functions have their local frame in the heap and this allows closures to persist after the parent function has exited, until the local-frame is eventually GC'd because there aren't any closures using it still floating around. This is one of the big reasons why Lisp is too slow to be competitive.
So, without quotations, and without even the novice-package pseudo-quotations, you get this kind of code:
struct itimer \ -- len
\ *G Interval timer structure.
\ *[
cell field itlink \ link to next timer ; MUST be first
cell field itTimerId \ timer ID
cell field itinterval \ period of timer in MS
cell field ittimeout \ next timeout
cell field itmode \ mode/flags, 0=periodic, 1=one shot
cell field itxt \ word to execute
end-struct
: do-timers \ -- ; process all the timers in the chain
active-timers @
begin
dup
while \ -- struct
dup itlink @ swap \ get next in chain
dup ittimeout @ ticks - 0< if \ if the interval has expired
dup itxt @ execute \ run the word
dup itmode @ single-shot = if \ if a single shot timer
release-timer \ dispose of the timer
else
dup itinterval @ \ update the timeout point
swap ittimeout +!
endif
else
drop
endif
repeat
drop \ discard the end of chain
;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 07:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e649b187-35f3-4f4b-acbd-ae391de49887@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48645 |
On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 9:13:35 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote:
> The present proposal does not propose that a quotation can access the
> locals of a containing definition, because the implementation would be
> relatively complex, impose a run-time overhead, and the lifetime of
> the locals would be restricted (unless we are willing to accept
> further complexity). While there are a number of people who are very
> keen to have such a feature, it is not clear how much it would be
> used. System implementors are encouraged to provide support for
> accessing outer locals on an experimental basis so that programmers
> can explore the usefulness of this feature, possibly resulting in a
> proposal for this feature in the future.
Anton Ertl got upset in this thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/ThNbbKDKjh0
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 7:02:02 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
> >It would be appropriate for
> >implementers to offer this as an experimental mode and see where that
> >goes. If it does become common practice, then a future standard could
> >sanctify it.
>
> I very much doubt that this is a path that leads to adoption. Do you
> think that anybody will be convinced by a report "We have implemented
> *1 for a double 1 for three years, and have not received any
> complaints." Will it be better after ten years? Fifty?
>
> No, this is the kind of proposal where people have to make a conscious
> decision...
Now he is using the same patronizing tactic in regard to quotations. Anton says: "System implementors are encouraged to provide support for accessing outer locals on an experimental basis so that programmers can explore the usefulness of this feature, possibly resulting in a proposal for this feature in the future."
Here is some code that works in VFX and could easily be made to work in any Forth compiler:
: rexit ( -- ) rdrop ;
: (r:) ( -- r ) r@ 5 + ; \ 5 is the size of a JMP instruction in 32-bit x86
: r[ ( -- r ) postpone (r:) postpone ahead ; immediate
: ]r ( -- ) postpone rexit postpone then ; immediate
code rex ( r -- ) \ HumptyDumpty called this RCALL
push edi \ this is the HOF's LF which won't be used by the quotation
mov edi, 0 [edi] \ this is the parent's LF which will be used by the quotation
call ' execute
pop edi \ restore HOF's LF
next, end-code
I don't know what the problem is. I just write Forth code that works --- call me crazy!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 17:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc19e1f1-81b1-4d3c-b818-abde8fa9a1c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48645 |
On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 9:13:35 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > RfD: Quotations > ... > Additional contributors; Hugh Aguilar and Gerry Jackson. I'm really not playing around --- I will sue you for libel if you list me as a contributor to Forth-200x --- listing somebody as a supporter when the person has repeatedly and clearly denied you permission is blatant libel, so I will easily win the court case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alex@rivadpm.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 01:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de532e6b-99db-4db6-a6b0-9034120b0253@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48781 |
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:03:11 AM UTC+1, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 9:13:35 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > > RfD: Quotations > > ... > > Additional contributors; Hugh Aguilar and Gerry Jackson. > > I'm really not playing around --- I will sue you for libel if you list me as a contributor to Forth-200x --- listing somebody as a supporter when the person has repeatedly and clearly denied you permission is blatant libel, so I will easily win the court case. Neither am I. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.forth/ohE8mx7tWQU/c0EKXbQmAAAJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 10:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nlgff8$82b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48781 |
On 7/4/2016 8:03 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 9:13:35 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: >> RfD: Quotations >> ... >> Additional contributors; Hugh Aguilar and Gerry Jackson. > > I'm really not playing around --- I will sue you for libel if you list me as a contributor to Forth-200x --- listing somebody as a supporter when the person has repeatedly and clearly denied you permission is blatant libel, so I will easily win the court case. Actually, I think it is hard to make a claim that anyone is properly notified legally by posting a notice in a newsgroup. There is no way to verify the authenticity of your post or your identity or even that the notice was ever delivered. If you are really serious about this you need to send a letter with return receipt or certified mail. A post here means nothing in this issue. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 10:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec7e6061-7f8c-4be8-94ed-1dd1dcfecdf4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48804 |
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:16:09 AM UTC-7, rickman wrote: > On 7/4/2016 8:03 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 9:13:35 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > >> RfD: Quotations > >> ... > >> Additional contributors; Hugh Aguilar and Gerry Jackson. > > > > I'm really not playing around --- I will sue you for libel if you list me as a contributor to Forth-200x --- listing somebody as a supporter when the person has repeatedly and clearly denied you permission is blatant libel, so I will easily win the court case. > > Actually, I think it is hard to make a claim that anyone is properly > notified legally by posting a notice in a newsgroup. There is no way to > verify the authenticity of your post or your identity or even that the > notice was ever delivered. > > If you are really serious about this you need to send a letter with > return receipt or certified mail. A post here means nothing in this issue. It will be difficult to force the Forth-200x committee to remove my name from their list of contributors. Ray Duncan and Charles Moore both opposed ANS-Forth in 1993, but they were both unable to prevent Elizabeth Rather from listing their names on the ANS-Forth document as contributors in 1994. Realistically, ANSI wouldn't have ratified ANS-Forth without Forth's inventor's name listed on the document. Elizabeth Rather seems to be very comfortable with lawsuits and she likely felt confident that she could win in court if Charles Moore or any of the other "contributors" sued her --- at the very least, she could make the court battle expensive enough for them that they would eventually just give up. Recently Elizabeth Rather was bragging on comp.lang.forth that that she was suing Apple Computer for using the name "Swift" for their new language (https://swift.org/about/). That was a very bold move considering that Apple Computer obviously has a lot of resources for defending itself. Elizabeth Rather must feel pretty confident with lawsuits in order to go after such a big fish as Apple Computer. The typical sociopath will sue a small company (like the local mom-and-pop grocery store) assuming that they lack the resources to defend themselves, but that they have enough resources to make stealing from them worthwhile. Elizabeth Rather's bold plan didn't work out very well as there was an assassination attempt made against her in the parking lot of her condo in Oahu Hawaii --- after that she had to drop her lawsuit against Apple Computer and leave Hawaii --- most likely she believed that nobody would figure out that her real name is Elizabeth Conklin and nobody would be able to figure out where she lived, but that plan didn't work out for her. According to Jeff Fox, the reason why Charles Moore left Forth Inc. is because Elizabeth Rather wanted to sue FIG for stealing Forth Inc.'s MicroForth. Charles Moore refused to support the lawsuit because he felt that FIG was promoting Forth and increasing the numbers of Forth programmers, and because he felt confident that his own code would always be better than FIG's because of this skill at programming. She had a strong case because a lot of that code in FIGforth was copied directly out of MicroForth. This was also in the era of Apple's look-and-feel lawsuit, so Elizabeth Rather believed that even if code wasn't copied directly out Forth Inc. code, she could still legally prevent anybody from selling a Forth compiler that copied Forth Inc.'s look-and-feel. Charles Moore left Forth Inc. because of this disagreement --- Elizabeth Rather's dream of using lawsuits to kill the Forth community fizzled out because she couldn't do this without the support of Forth's inventor. Throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, Forth Inc. struggled to survive by selling PolyForth that was of significantly lower quality than UR/Forth from LMI (Ray Duncan). During the MS-DOS era there were several Forth compilers being sold for $100 or less that were of higher quality than PolyForth, although PolyForth compared well against F83 and other free Forth systems. Then she came up with the idea of ANS-Forth --- that did it! --- she finally killed the Forth community, which had always been her dream. To a large extent, the whole purpose of the Forth-200x mailing list is to collect names of people interested in Forth for the purpose of listing their names on the Forth-200x document as "contributors" when the Forth-200x document finally gets ratified. People sign up for the mailing list out of curiosity, they join in a few discussions (currently they are debating the syntax for double-precision numbers), then they quit the mailing list because they realize that Forth-200x is complete foolishness. Their names will be listed as "contributors" on the Forth-200x document --- they likely will be unable to legally prevent this because they did contribute when they engaged in those discussions before leaving --- the end result will be that the Forth-200x document will list a lot of names of prominent Forth programmers as supporters and Forth-200x will appear to be a grass-roots project arising spontaneously within the Forth community. Afterward, Elizabeth Rather will tell the Forth community: "Forth-200x is the Standard, so if you aren't compliant with Forth-200x then you aren't really a Forth programmer at all. I will decide if you are compliant or not, so I hope you brought knee-pads because you are going to have to beg me to accept you."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 20:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zowdp8zzi0dr.17azu0r0ec1qx$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #48807 |
Op Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:48:32 -0700 (PDT) schreef hughaguilar96@gmail.com: <snip drivel> > It will be difficult to force the Forth-200x committee to remove > my name from their list of contributors. Ray Duncan and Charles > Moore both opposed ANS-Forth in 1993, but they were both unable to > prevent Elizabeth Rather from listing their names on the ANS-Forth > document as contributors in 1994. I found 5 references to Charles Moore's name in the 2012 document. Do you really think that he gives a damn that his name is mentioned? Did you friendly ask him to remove his name? Of course not, friendship is not a word in your dictionary, only hatred. This really is your thinking of conspiracy by the ANS comittee. groet Coos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web