Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #54064 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-17 12:17 +1100 |
| Last post | 2017-03-26 01:52 -0700 |
| Articles | 9 on this page of 269 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-17 12:17 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-16 18:27 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 18:28 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-16 20:56 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-19 13:05 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 23:29 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-20 11:46 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 22:28 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-22 18:45 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-25 09:57 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2017-01-25 23:56 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-26 03:35 -0600
Re: EXIT THEN Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-01-26 11:31 +0100
Re: EXIT THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-26 11:07 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-05 19:15 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-07 17:54 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-07 21:14 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-13 16:52 +0000
Recognizer using CATCH/THROW [was Re: EXIT THEN] Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-15 23:49 +0000
Re: Recognizer using CATCH/THROW [was Re: EXIT THEN] Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-16 14:41 +0000
Re: Recognizer using CATCH/THROW [was Re: EXIT THEN] Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-16 16:59 +0000
Recognizer using CATCH/THROW [was Re: EXIT THEN] Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-11 15:05 +0000
Re: Recognizer using CATCH/THROW [was Re: EXIT THEN] Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 12:37 -0700
Re: Recognizer using CATCH/THROW [was Re: EXIT THEN] Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-13 21:32 +0000
Re: Recognizer using CATCH/THROW [was Re: EXIT THEN] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-14 04:42 -0500
Re: Recognizer using CATCH/THROW [was Re: EXIT THEN] Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-14 11:45 +0000
Re: Recognizer using CATCH/THROW [was Re: EXIT THEN] Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-14 12:41 +0000
Re: Recognizer using CATCH/THROW [was Re: EXIT THEN] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-14 14:20 +0100
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:15 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-13 16:49 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-08 19:43 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-13 16:31 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-14 11:12 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-15 17:22 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-17 10:16 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2017-01-26 09:11 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-28 11:07 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-27 18:31 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-29 12:07 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-28 17:37 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 21:40 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-29 19:56 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 00:30 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-31 04:22 -0600
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-31 14:42 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-01-31 19:16 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-31 21:00 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-02-01 17:35 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 01:31 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-02-02 20:09 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-02 18:03 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 22:04 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-01 03:15 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-02-01 17:32 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-30 13:30 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 05:56 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-01-30 12:13 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-30 22:25 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-01-26 10:48 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2017-01-26 08:41 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-27 21:36 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-17 17:06 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-01-16 16:31 -1000
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-16 20:59 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-17 06:11 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-18 10:36 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-01-20 07:33 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-20 23:02 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-01-20 13:47 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-20 18:55 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-01-22 09:15 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-22 14:30 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 20:58 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-01-23 10:47 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 06:20 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-01-23 13:09 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 14:41 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-01-23 20:52 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 16:21 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-01-24 06:55 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 03:56 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-01-24 09:46 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-22 22:38 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-23 15:09 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-01-23 10:16 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 05:53 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-01-23 12:14 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 14:53 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-24 21:37 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 19:54 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-25 03:38 -0600
Re: EXIT THEN Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 08:01 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-17 10:27 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-17 11:34 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-18 14:35 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-18 10:37 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 20:53 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-01-17 18:02 -1000
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 00:15 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-01-17 19:34 -1000
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 03:33 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-18 03:45 -0600
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:43 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-18 13:17 +0100
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-19 13:46 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-18 13:56 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-19 13:04 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-01-18 18:10 -1000
Re: EXIT THEN Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-19 03:51 -0600
Re: EXIT THEN hheinrich.hohl@gmail.com - 2017-01-19 02:28 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-20 22:23 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 13:32 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-01-20 18:18 -1000
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-23 12:00 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 21:10 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 01:22 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 06:03 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 02:27 +0100
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 04:00 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-24 07:49 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 20:04 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-24 20:23 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 21:32 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-01-24 23:04 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-25 00:45 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-25 07:16 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 02:57 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-25 16:55 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-01-25 09:53 -1000
Re: EXIT THEN Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-01-26 22:40 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-26 10:55 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2017-01-26 10:17 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-27 13:09 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-26 21:54 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 14:12 +0100
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-28 12:32 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-29 10:35 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-22 21:35 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-23 04:15 -0600
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-23 10:29 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-23 21:48 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 06:18 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-26 11:34 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 22:04 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-01-25 17:22 -1000
Re: EXIT THEN Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-01-26 00:55 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-27 13:40 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-01-20 11:44 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-01-18 08:02 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 17:45 +0100
Re: EXIT THEN Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-01-19 20:02 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 18:23 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-02-02 12:24 +0100
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-10 12:15 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN mhx@iae.nl - 2017-02-10 10:57 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-11 12:45 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 18:13 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-02-11 07:55 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-11 13:16 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-11 11:28 -1000
Re: EXIT THEN Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-11 13:40 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 18:52 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2017-02-12 12:09 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 07:24 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-02-12 16:42 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 13:52 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 00:02 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 21:27 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-13 07:53 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-12 16:25 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 17:11 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-12 18:49 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-12 18:59 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 21:18 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-12 14:39 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 18:47 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 00:49 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-11 23:07 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2017-02-12 12:36 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-13 11:08 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 17:04 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 17:08 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 17:24 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 16:32 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-19 10:47 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:07 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-19 13:54 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN Heinrich Hohl <hheinrich.hohl@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 02:40 -0800
Re: EXIT THEN Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-02-17 19:25 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-19 12:36 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 06:32 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2017-03-21 08:33 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-22 02:21 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 09:57 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 18:17 +0100
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 10:22 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-21 17:56 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 11:59 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-21 19:16 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 12:24 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-21 19:26 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 12:32 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-21 19:51 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 12:56 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-21 21:02 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 14:15 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-21 21:36 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 15:12 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 16:13 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-22 09:16 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 03:35 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 13:33 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-21 17:51 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-21 18:59 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 12:07 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 12:17 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-22 20:08 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-22 09:18 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-22 22:25 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 04:46 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-22 12:23 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 05:27 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 05:36 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-22 13:14 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 13:43 +0100
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-22 13:04 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-22 11:49 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 05:24 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-22 13:00 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 06:12 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 07:00 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 07:14 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 10:43 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 11:09 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-22 18:22 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 11:42 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 15:45 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 15:57 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 16:17 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 12:03 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-22 14:27 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 14:31 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-23 14:41 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-22 14:57 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-26 01:11 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 11:40 +0300
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-26 01:57 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-26 09:50 +0100
Re: EXIT THEN foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 09:14 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-23 00:48 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-22 13:59 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-23 09:52 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 16:13 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-23 14:39 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 16:33 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-24 14:17 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-24 11:49 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 18:12 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-24 08:55 +0000
Re: EXIT THEN Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-24 09:14 -0500
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-25 13:00 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 20:25 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 02:10 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-25 12:08 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 06:59 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-23 09:53 +1100
Re: EXIT THEN Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 07:52 -0700
Re: EXIT THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-26 16:31 +1000
Re: EXIT THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-26 01:52 -0700
Page 14 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-25 13:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ob4ir2$3kf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #56218 |
Alex wrote: > On 3/24/2017 00:49, HAA wrote: > > Alex wrote: > >> On 3/22/2017 22:52, HAA wrote: > >>> Alex wrote: > >>>> On 3/22/2017 13:48, HAA wrote: > >>>>> ... > > >> > >> Constructs like (qv OF) OVER = IF DROP are inefficient on a > >> register based machine when naively compiled, so code rewriting > >> (which is what optimizing compilers do) is something that can pay > >> enormous dividends. > > > > Dividends come in various forms e.g. technical and political. ANS > > CASE wasn't defined for technical excellence, it was defined to > > secure a political outcome - namely accommodating as many existing > > CASE implementations as possible. > > That sounds like a technical outcome. To have as a goal accommodating as > few implementations as possible sounds political to me. A technical outcome is one that can demonstrate technical merit. A political outcome is one that secures votes through appeasement and trading things away. C. Moore: "... the principle I cannot subscribe to is that matters of fact or truth or beauty can be voted on. The facts speak for themselves." > >> ... There's nothing wrong with the specification of CASE/ENDCASE. > >> It's just tough (but not impossible) to generate decent code with > >> the simple code generation tools we currently have. > > > > Implement ANS CASE by whatever means you wish but understand the > > specification was based on political considerations. I reject any > > CASE specification that mandates ENDOF. And I might add, so does > > Forth. > > > > Forth rejects ENDOF? Absolutely. ANS CASE has been discussed ad nauseum over the decades but perhaps less so the politics. Forth is premised on the idea of manual optimization i.e. small components sufficiently compatible that programmers can manipulate to secure efficiencies. As many will know ENDOF was just ELSE under the hood. Had ANS specified ELSE instead of ENDOF it would have had technical merit as programmers could then apply 'ELSE elimination' - a popular optimization strategy in Forth. It also would have permitted use of IF where OF didn't suit. ANS didn't do these things because it would have been political suicide. Everybody had already invested in the Eaker syntax - as bad and inflexible as it was from a Forth perspective. If you think ANS CASE is well regarded and sufficient, ask Anton who not long ago proposed additions all because ANS had made CASE a little universe of its own. Hugh has other reasons for rejecting ANS CASE but the fact is it fails even as a nested IF ELSE structure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-24 20:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc9e2dbc-65b4-4630-88c6-c7a2d3bd0e42@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56252 |
On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:58:00 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote: > Forth is premised on the idea of manual optimization i.e. small components > sufficiently compatible that programmers can manipulate to secure efficiencies. > As many will know ENDOF was just ELSE under the hood. Had ANS specified > ELSE instead of ENDOF it would have had technical merit as programmers > could then apply 'ELSE elimination' - a popular optimization strategy in Forth. > It also would have permitted use of IF where OF didn't suit. ANS didn't do these > things because it would have been political suicide. Everybody had already > invested in the Eaker syntax - as bad and inflexible as it was from a Forth > perspective. Not "everybody" invested in Eaker CASE --- Testra, for example, wrote their own that was efficient --- they needed this for simulating a VM. Mostly it was just novice Forth programmers who had invested in Eaker's CASE because they didn't know any better --- the were impressed by getting some syntax --- they weren't writing real programs that demand the speed of a jump-table. A lot of novice Forth programmers learn about meta-compiling (with POSTPONE or, in the Forth-83 days, with COMPILE and [COMPILE]). Then they immediately decide to give some syntax to Forth --- they expect to be congratulated as advanced Forth programmers --- but they don't realize that syntax isn't necessarily a benefit. Eaker's CASE won the "Forth Dimensions" contest and Eaker was congratulated as an advanced Forth programmer --- it was a contest for novice Forth programmers though --- his code was advanced novice-level programming. It was a mistake to use the "Forth Dimensions" contest as the basis for the ANS-Forth standard --- better to consider practical needs, such as getting a jump-table for speed in simulating a VM --- ANS-Forth was amateur hour in languages design! > If you think ANS CASE is well regarded and sufficient, ask Anton who not long > ago proposed additions all because ANS had made CASE a little universe of its own. > Hugh has other reasons for rejecting ANS CASE but the fact is it fails even as a > nested IF ELSE structure. Eaker's CASE offers nothing that IF ELSE THEN don't already provide --- it is just syntactic sugar for nested IF ELSE THEN constructs --- and it added complexity (I still can't remember how to use CASE without looking it up in the ANS-Forth document).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-25 02:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cbb2298a-12e6-439f-91a9-df5e11c24f3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56254 |
On Saturday, 25 March 2017 03:25:16 UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:58:00 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote: > > Forth is premised on the idea of manual optimization i.e. small components > > sufficiently compatible that programmers can manipulate to secure efficiencies. > > As many will know ENDOF was just ELSE under the hood. Had ANS specified > > ELSE instead of ENDOF it would have had technical merit as programmers > > could then apply 'ELSE elimination' - a popular optimization strategy in Forth. > > It also would have permitted use of IF where OF didn't suit. ANS didn't do these > > things because it would have been political suicide. Everybody had already > > invested in the Eaker syntax - as bad and inflexible as it was from a Forth > > perspective. > > Not "everybody" invested in Eaker CASE --- Testra, for example, wrote their own that was efficient --- they needed this for simulating a VM. > > Mostly it was just novice Forth programmers who had invested in Eaker's CASE because they didn't know any better --- the were impressed by getting some syntax --- they weren't writing real programs that demand the speed of a jump-table. > > A lot of novice Forth programmers learn about meta-compiling (with POSTPONE or, in the Forth-83 days, with COMPILE and [COMPILE]). Then they immediately decide to give some syntax to Forth --- they expect to be congratulated as advanced Forth programmers --- but they don't realize that syntax isn't necessarily a benefit. > > Eaker's CASE won the "Forth Dimensions" contest and Eaker was congratulated as an advanced Forth programmer --- it was a contest for novice Forth programmers though --- his code was advanced novice-level programming. > > It was a mistake to use the "Forth Dimensions" contest as the basis for the ANS-Forth standard --- better to consider practical needs, such as getting a jump-table for speed in simulating a VM --- ANS-Forth was amateur hour in languages design! > > > If you think ANS CASE is well regarded and sufficient, ask Anton who not long > > ago proposed additions all because ANS had made CASE a little universe of its own. > > Hugh has other reasons for rejecting ANS CASE but the fact is it fails even as a > > nested IF ELSE structure. > > Eaker's CASE offers nothing that IF ELSE THEN don't already provide --- it is just syntactic sugar for nested IF ELSE THEN constructs --- and it added complexity (I still can't remember how to use CASE without looking it up in the ANS-Forth document). Very interesting and some good debate here. Eaker's CASE may not be efficient (it certainly isn't in my system, it's a text-book implementation) but it is flexible. The what I don't like about a jump-table approach is it forces you (CMIIW) to use constants as the test cases, which will be directly compiled into the jump-table/array for direct comparison purposes. That's not the case with the classical CASE implementation that we have. In any case, CASE and friends are written in high-level Forth. It's one of the huge beauties of Forth that we can do that. There's nothing to prevent anyone from developing their own jump-table based CASE on an ad-hoc basis, when needed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-25 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a16b53fc-ecb8-439c-bedd-fd29fbf180c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56266 |
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 2:10:40 AM UTC-7, Mark Wills wrote: > On Saturday, 25 March 2017 03:25:16 UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 6:58:00 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote: > > > Forth is premised on the idea of manual optimization i.e. small components > > > sufficiently compatible that programmers can manipulate to secure efficiencies. > > > As many will know ENDOF was just ELSE under the hood. Had ANS specified > > > ELSE instead of ENDOF it would have had technical merit as programmers > > > could then apply 'ELSE elimination' - a popular optimization strategy in Forth. > > > It also would have permitted use of IF where OF didn't suit. ANS didn't do these > > > things because it would have been political suicide. Everybody had already > > > invested in the Eaker syntax - as bad and inflexible as it was from a Forth > > > perspective. > > > > Not "everybody" invested in Eaker CASE --- Testra, for example, wrote their own that was efficient --- they needed this for simulating a VM. > > > > Mostly it was just novice Forth programmers who had invested in Eaker's CASE because they didn't know any better --- the were impressed by getting some syntax --- they weren't writing real programs that demand the speed of a jump-table. > > > > A lot of novice Forth programmers learn about meta-compiling (with POSTPONE or, in the Forth-83 days, with COMPILE and [COMPILE]). Then they immediately decide to give some syntax to Forth --- they expect to be congratulated as advanced Forth programmers --- but they don't realize that syntax isn't necessarily a benefit. > > > > Eaker's CASE won the "Forth Dimensions" contest and Eaker was congratulated as an advanced Forth programmer --- it was a contest for novice Forth programmers though --- his code was advanced novice-level programming. > > > > It was a mistake to use the "Forth Dimensions" contest as the basis for the ANS-Forth standard --- better to consider practical needs, such as getting a jump-table for speed in simulating a VM --- ANS-Forth was amateur hour in languages design! > > > > > If you think ANS CASE is well regarded and sufficient, ask Anton who not long > > > ago proposed additions all because ANS had made CASE a little universe of its own. > > > Hugh has other reasons for rejecting ANS CASE but the fact is it fails even as a > > > nested IF ELSE structure. > > > > Eaker's CASE offers nothing that IF ELSE THEN don't already provide --- it is just syntactic sugar for nested IF ELSE THEN constructs --- and it added complexity (I still can't remember how to use CASE without looking it up in the ANS-Forth document). > Very interesting and some good debate here. > > Eaker's CASE may not be efficient (it certainly isn't in my system, it's > a text-book implementation) but it is flexible. The what I don't like about > a jump-table approach is it forces you (CMIIW) to use constants as the test > cases, which will be directly compiled into the jump-table/array for direct > comparison purposes. That's not the case with the classical CASE > implementation that we have. For those situations, I typically use: IF ... EXIT THEN It is possible to use CASE though, if you like the syntax --- writing CASE in ANS-Forth should be trivial. > In any case, CASE and friends are written in high-level Forth. It's one > of the huge beauties of Forth that we can do that. There's nothing to > prevent anyone from developing their own jump-table based CASE on an ad-hoc > basis, when needed. Well, I wrote <SWITCH ... FAST-SWITCH> that compiles a jump-table --- this was intermediate-level Forth --- I doubt that most novice-level Forth programmers could succeed at this. The major problem with <SWITCH is that the code elements can't share local variables like they can in C --- this really shines a spotlight on ANS-Forth's failure to provide quotations --- Forth-200x also fails to provide quotations. So, yes --- there is something to prevent ANS-Forth programmers from developing their own jump-table based CASE --- ANS-Forth fails to provide quotations, and the Forth-200x committee absolutely refuse to fix this problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 06:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4690c7e-18d7-47c5-8a81-3124d87644fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56105 |
Am Mittwoch, 22. März 2017 14:46:11 UTC+1 schrieb HAA: > Alex wrote: > > On 3/22/2017 11:25, HAA wrote: > > > Alex wrote: > > >> On 3/22/2017 09:08, HAA wrote: > > >>> Helmar Wodtke wrote: > > >>>> ... > > >>>> I btw. also try to avoid ELSE. I use AND: and OR: if possible. By using ;THEN there > > >>>> is the ELSE-part behind ;THEN. But I still have ELSE too and use it from time to > > >>>> time... > > >>>> > > >>>> Regards, > > >>>> -Helmar > > >>> > > >>> Agreed. There is a difference between having ELSE and misusing it. ANS-CASE is > > >>> an example of misusing ELSE. > > >>> > > >> > > >> ANS Forth doesn't tell you how to implement CASE. > > > > > > How many ways are there to implement a straight-jacket? > > > > You keep making Hugh's mistake with his Straitjacketforth; you think > > standards tell you *how* to implement something, rather than describing > > what they must do, so you assume ANS requires using ELSE, and you were > > so sure you didn't bother checking. > > The fact is ANS *describes* a nested IF ELSE CASE. Whichever way > you may choose to implement it, you cannot avoid the inefficiencies > implicit in such a structure. ANS *requires* all ENDOFs to point to a > common exit point. This will *require* using a jump or other mechanism > to achieve. This is waste if all you needed was an immediate Exit. > > > > > I leave the various implementations to your imagination (or lack of). As > > does the standard. > > Don't leave it to me. You're the one with the imagination. You turn it into > reality :) Well, what is the problem with EXIT inside even DPANS94? Regards, -Helmar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 09:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <oauv4t$1l3v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #56108 |
Helmar Wodtke wrote: > ... > Well, what is the problem with EXIT inside even DPANS94? > > Regards, > -Helmar You mean insert an EXIT just before ENDOF? That's possible in a simple nested-IF Case implementation. It will achieve the desired effect but it won't avoid the code represented by ENDOF. That will still be generated. It's not solving the fact ANS CASE needs ENDOF, it's just working around it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-25 07:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5419456-f971-4b35-96cd-d1158b9e4c31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56145 |
Am Mittwoch, 22. März 2017 23:51:14 UTC+1 schrieb HAA: > Helmar Wodtke wrote: > > ... > > Well, what is the problem with EXIT inside even DPANS94? > > > > Regards, > > -Helmar > > You mean insert an EXIT just before ENDOF? That's possible in a simple > nested-IF Case implementation. It will achieve the desired effect but it > won't avoid the code represented by ENDOF. That will still be generated. > It's not solving the fact ANS CASE needs ENDOF, it's just working around it. This depends on your compiler. It's a common optimization, that if last thing compiled was a "jump" (and EXIT is probably a jump-like thing), the next compiled thing can be omitted if no other code can access it. You can do this by second pass over TC (as I did with my HelFORTH-JIT) or make it in a complicated way that you trace if last thing was EXIT, next thing was ELSE/THEN/ENDOF or what you like else. Today this small jump that ENDOF compiles is not worth to talk of in terms of used memory. Even very old systems did turnkey-generation by eliminating non-used code. In such systems it's completely uninteresting if there is some jump code "too much" in your opinion. The Eaker-CASE is something to structure source-code, not to structure compilation results. Regards, -Helmar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 16:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ob7jqt$14ev$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #56277 |
Helmar Wodtke wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 22. März 2017 23:51:14 UTC+1 schrieb HAA: > > Helmar Wodtke wrote: > > > ... > > > Well, what is the problem with EXIT inside even DPANS94? > > > > > > Regards, > > > -Helmar > > > > You mean insert an EXIT just before ENDOF? That's possible in a simple > > nested-IF Case implementation. It will achieve the desired effect but it > > won't avoid the code represented by ENDOF. That will still be generated. > > It's not solving the fact ANS CASE needs ENDOF, it's just working around it. > > This depends on your compiler. It's a common optimization, that if last thing compiled > was a "jump" (and EXIT is probably a jump-like thing), the next compiled thing can be > omitted if no other code can access it. You can do this by second pass over TC (as I > did with my HelFORTH-JIT) or make it in a complicated way that you trace if last thing > was EXIT, next thing was ELSE/THEN/ENDOF or what you like else. Today this small jump > that ENDOF compiles is not worth to talk of in terms of used memory. Even very old > systems did turnkey-generation by eliminating non-used code. In such systems it's > completely uninteresting if there is some jump code "too much" in your opinion. > The Eaker-CASE is something to structure source-code, not to structure compilation > results. > > Regards, > -Helmar In saying a fancy compiler is needed and/or code generated by ENDOF is insignificant - is not justifying the ANS spec but excusing it. Here's the test. Knowing what you now know about ANS CASE, would you produce the same spec today? The problem of standards is they describe the past, and having standardized it are reluctant to change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 01:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0fe4c58-f308-423f-b732-e1af6c82f636@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56319 |
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 10:33:20 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote: > Helmar Wodtke wrote: > > The Eaker-CASE is something to structure source-code, not to structure compilation > > results. > > > > Regards, > > -Helmar Helmar is spouting nonsense in the usual ANS-Forth way. The ANS-Forth standard is too loose --- CASE allows too much (target values that are calculated at run-time, and duplicate target values). > In saying a fancy compiler is needed and/or code generated by ENDOF is insignificant > - is not justifying the ANS spec but excusing it. Here's the test. Knowing what you now > know about ANS CASE, would you produce the same spec today? The problem of > standards is they describe the past, and having standardized it are reluctant to change. People usually (actually always) claim to have made their decisions based on careful reasoning. The truth is that they make decisions based on hunches and then invent the "reasons" afterward --- if it was a bad decision, this is called: "making excuses" --- if it was a good decision, this is called: "pretending to be a genius" (this occurs less than 50% of the time for most people). A 4D was teaching me Go for a while. He working as a sushi cutter-upper, but on his breaks he would come over to watch me play Go on the internet using the wifi. Later on, he found another job though, so I lost my free instruction (normally a 4D would charge money for teaching). What impressed me most about him, is that he doesn't guess. Sometimes he makes a mistake due to misreading, but he never plays a stone because it intuitively looks like it should accomplish his goal (kill an opponent's group or save his group). When a student would play a stone, the teacher will ask: "Why did you play there?" If you don't have an actual answer, your teacher will abandon you as hopeless --- a bad answer based on faulty reasoning can be corrected --- if your only answer is to say, "Um, it is common practice," then that is not an answer. Note that Go does have joseki that are fuseki (opening) sequences that have been determined by professional dans to be good. You can't play these by rote memory the way that chess openings can be played by rote memory. The reason is that a joseki is for one corner of the board, but there are four corners that influence each other, plus you may have other stones scattered around (the infamous tengen, for example) that have an effect. Anybody who tries to follow "common practice" without understanding the reasons, will get whupped early and often, and will not progress --- you really have to think about your moves --- faulty thinking is infinitely better than guessing because faulty thinking can be improved by a teacher and/or by just thinking more deeply.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web