Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #55968 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-20 09:58 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-03-24 17:52 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 212 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 09:58 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-20 10:34 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 10:51 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-20 18:08 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! NN <november.nihal@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 12:19 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 05:51 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 15:04 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-21 11:22 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 14:47 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 01:34 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-25 17:27 +1100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-25 00:06 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-25 01:02 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-25 01:05 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-27 12:11 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-27 15:53 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-26 22:12 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-29 10:30 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-25 09:34 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! mhx@iae.nl - 2017-03-25 03:46 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-27 10:56 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-28 10:07 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! mhx@iae.nl - 2017-03-27 16:46 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-27 18:51 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-27 17:21 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 10:57 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! minforth@arcor.de - 2017-03-28 01:16 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-28 03:36 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! minforth@arcor.de - 2017-03-28 01:54 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-28 12:57 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-28 03:51 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-29 10:29 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 03:33 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 05:17 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 09:42 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 09:49 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 12:12 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 10:28 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-21 16:43 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-21 14:11 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-21 16:46 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 12:32 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 10:57 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 14:10 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 12:50 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 15:29 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 14:01 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-22 03:23 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-04-07 09:26 +0200
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-07 10:10 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-21 16:42 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-22 13:10 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 06:38 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-22 15:24 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-22 08:52 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-25 13:55 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-25 17:41 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 07:43 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 08:06 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 10:01 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 10:19 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 10:59 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-22 18:31 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 13:55 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 05:50 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-23 08:05 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-23 13:47 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 15:31 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-23 10:25 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-24 18:07 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 10:45 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 03:50 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-03 05:57 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 12:08 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 12:26 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 16:02 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 16:08 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 16:35 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 18:28 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-04 10:14 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 12:44 +0200
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-04 12:32 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 06:49 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! crc <charles.childers@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 04:50 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-04 13:14 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-05 11:19 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 04:16 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-05 12:35 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 13:55 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-03 17:04 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 07:29 +0300
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 02:52 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-05-04 05:08 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 06:34 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-04 11:17 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2017-05-03 19:03 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-24 18:12 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-25 13:49 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-23 00:58 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-23 00:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-22 20:55 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 18:05 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 15:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-25 10:29 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 04:00 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 08:01 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-04 16:06 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 14:02 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-23 00:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-22 20:59 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-23 12:14 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-23 14:45 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-23 12:24 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-28 10:55 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-27 17:24 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-29 10:49 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-28 15:05 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 19:06 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 06:43 +0300
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-30 10:37 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-29 19:34 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-23 10:36 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-23 11:33 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-23 14:58 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-24 17:57 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-24 22:32 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 17:10 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-25 07:31 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-04-07 08:50 +0200
Re: Make Forth Small Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 17:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 10:09 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 10:28 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 07:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-03 13:07 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 16:03 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-20 14:08 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 17:51 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! minforth@arcor.de - 2017-03-20 13:12 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! bruehlconsult@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 17:22 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 19:12 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 02:30 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! minforth@arcor.de - 2017-03-21 02:47 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 05:56 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 16:07 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-21 14:28 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-28 11:30 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-21 16:42 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-21 22:56 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 04:04 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-23 00:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 02:32 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-24 10:00 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 06:46 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-24 14:41 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 15:32 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-25 23:10 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 17:29 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-25 18:08 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-26 08:30 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-26 08:50 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 15:14 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-27 08:32 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 13:21 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-27 15:31 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-27 09:04 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-03-27 11:52 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-27 18:41 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-03-27 12:58 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-27 12:07 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-03-27 13:06 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 11:30 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-28 20:06 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-29 14:54 +0200
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 19:13 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-27 21:18 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 10:54 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 21:53 +0300
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-27 22:29 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 14:07 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 16:03 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-31 09:28 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 03:36 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-31 19:29 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 04:37 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-01 09:23 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 10:37 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-01 11:55 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 14:15 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 12:55 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-07 12:08 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-07 09:04 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 21:35 +0200
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-04-01 20:35 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 11:52 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 16:31 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 20:54 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 21:13 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 16:06 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-31 09:42 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 03:52 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 20:26 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-27 04:55 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-27 08:49 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 13:35 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 14:23 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 15:28 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 23:20 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 02:29 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 03:20 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-31 03:38 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-24 09:17 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 17:52 -0700
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 12:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1fffbz49fyto5.3eu5e8rnbkqq$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #58624 |
Op Thu, 4 May 2017 10:14:33 +0100 schreef john: > In article <oed3ps$jg6$1@dont-email.me>, alex@rivadpm.com says... >> >> On 5/3/2017 16:35, john wrote: >>> In article <oecrjk$luf$1@dont-email.me>, alex@rivadpm.com says... >>>> >>>> On 5/3/2017 16:02, john wrote: >>>>> In article <oecejt$ki3$1@dont-email.me>, alex@rivadpm.com says... >>>>>> Let's take adding two numbers and overflow. How would you suggest the >>>>>> standard addresses this requirement you have for the same output from >>>>>> the same input? Here's a reminder of the problem you face; standards >>>>>> don't do addition, processors do. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't see your issue. >>>>> Let me see an example. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> You responded to it when I posted it before. >>>> >>>> : foo 1+ ; >>>> >>>> What should be the output from >>>> >>>> 65535 foo . >>> >>> Is "foo" a standard word? >>> >> >> No. 1+ is. It adds 1 to the top of the stack. If the definition is >> confusing, try this instead. What should the result be? >> >> 65535 1+ . > > Ok now we are talking about something more specific. > So which standard are you using and what does it say in words and stack > picture about "1+" ? You can look it up yourself: 6.1.0290 groet Coos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <anon@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 12:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.337521a21f6a93de98971d@news.virginmedia.com> |
| In reply to | #58626 |
In article <1fffbz49fyto5.3eu5e8rnbkqq$.dlg@40tude.net>, htrofhc@gmail.com says... > > > > Ok now we are talking about something more specific. > > So which standard are you using and what does it say in words and stack > > picture about "1+" ? > > You can look it up yourself: 6.1.0290 > > groet Coos I have no idea what 6.1.0290 means If you have a real issue - state the issue. If it's better described online post the link and point out where in the link your issue is and what the problem is. 6.1.0290 -- john ========================= http://johntech.co.uk "Bleeding Edge Forum" http://johntech.co.uk/forum/ =========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 06:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QdadnfHCdZjciJbEnZ2dnUU7-cXNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #58629 |
john <anon@example.com> wrote:
> In article <1fffbz49fyto5.3eu5e8rnbkqq$.dlg@40tude.net>, htrofhc@gmail.com
> says...
>
>> > Ok now we are talking about something more specific.
>> > So which standard are you using and what does it say in words and stack
>> > picture about "1+" ?
>>
>> You can look it up yourself: 6.1.0290
>>
>> groet Coos
>
> I have no idea what 6.1.0290 means
>
> If you have a real issue - state the issue.
> If it's better described online post the link and point out
> where in the link your issue is and what the problem is.
> 6.1.0290
So, you are arguing about Forth standardization but have never read
the Forth standard.
6.1.0290 says:
1+ "one-plus" CORE
( n1 | u1 -- n2 | u2 )
Add one (1) to n1 | u1 giving the sum n2 | u2.
3.2.2.2, which is the relevant language here, says:
In all integer arithmetic operations, both overflow and underflow
shall be ignored. The value returned when either overflow or underflow
occurs is implementation defined.
Andrew.
http://www.forth200x.org/documents/forth-2012.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crc <charles.childers@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 04:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <383f0d7f-8041-4b27-bef7-bf05d147db29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58629 |
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 7:33:01 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok now we are talking about something more specific.
> > > So which standard are you using and what does it say in words and stack
> > > picture about "1+" ?
> >
> > You can look it up yourself: 6.1.0290
> >
> > groet Coos
>
> I have no idea what 6.1.0290 means
>
> If you have a real issue - state the issue.
> If it's better described online post the link and point out
> where in the link your issue is and what the problem is.
> 6.1.0290
>
> --
>
> john
>
> =========================
> http://johntech.co.uk
>
> "Bleeding Edge Forum"
> http://johntech.co.uk/forum/
>
> =========================
6.1.0290 is the part of the ANS standard covering 1+.
6.1.0290 1+ “one-plus” CORE
( n1|u1 -- n2|u2 )
Add one (1) to n1|u1 giving the sum n2|u2.
(See http://forthworks.com/forth/standards/DPANS/DPANS.pdf)
-- crc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 13:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oef5o8$ft7$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58629 |
On 5/4/2017 12:32, john wrote: > In article <1fffbz49fyto5.3eu5e8rnbkqq$.dlg@40tude.net>, htrofhc@gmail.com > says... > >>> >>> Ok now we are talking about something more specific. >>> So which standard are you using and what does it say in words and stack >>> picture about "1+" ? >> >> You can look it up yourself: 6.1.0290 >> >> groet Coos > > I have no idea what 6.1.0290 means > > If you have a real issue - state the issue. > If it's better described online post the link and point out > where in the link your issue is and what the problem is. > 6.1.0290 > But you were complaining about the Forth standard. You even said; >> An example. >> >> : FOO 1+ ; >> >> is a ANS standard program, but you may get different results on >> different systems when you type 65535 FOO . >> >> The value returned when either overflow or underflow occurs is >> implementation defined. >> > > Which is a very good point (at last) Alex. > Unlike the vast majority of "suggestions" in this group , this > is something a standards comittee should be correcting. > (in this case as a matter of urgency if such issue exists) > > If you get a differing result from the same code you don't have > a standard system at all - regardless of implementation or hardware. > > The only thing totally unaceptable from a standard is a different output from the > same input. > > The rest (as mr. siska says) is gossip. Since you're too lazy to remember your own posts, I don't hold out any great hope of having a sensible conversation. Here; http://forth-standard.org/ It's even searchable. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <anon@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 11:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.33766211d86bc95b98971e@news.virginmedia.com> |
| In reply to | #58640 |
In article <oef5o8$ft7$3@dont-email.me>, alex@rivadpm.com says... > > > > The only thing totally unaceptable from a standard is a different output from the > > same input. > > > > The rest (as mr. siska says) is gossip. > > Since you're too lazy to remember your own posts, I don't hold out any > great hope of having a sensible conversation. If you are going to make statements such as you did you must provide the full details of your problem if you wish to be taken seriously. A task you have still failed to perform. After wasting my time searching out your link this is what I found the specific standard you are complaining about says - cut and paste: "( n1 | u1 -- n2 | u2 ) Add one (1) to n1 | u1 giving the sum n2 | u2. " Which is what you should have simply posted to argue your point. Applying your apparent complaint of what happens when you do 66635 1+ because "standards don't do math" I see no issue. The standard you are using is perfectly clear and consistent. Any input will produce the same output if the standard is complied with therefore my own statement holds true in this instance. Unless you are suggesting 0 or whatever is unacceptable as a result. (I assumed you are talking about rollovers - I have to assume because you also ommited to point out you probably were thinking about 16 bit systems.) If you are suggesting that the standard should take a particular action on rollover that would be a very different issue - and a suggestion not a complaint. (One I would not support incidently) The empty headed rants in this group about standards from people who clearly dont need or use them is pointless noise. The only time to even think about a formal standard is if you are writing to be compliant or you are writing the standard - or possibly making a well thought out and documented suggestion. But please if you see something about 65535 1+ that violates the stack diagram above let me know. -- john ========================= http://johntech.co.uk "Bleeding Edge Forum" http://johntech.co.uk/forum/ =========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 04:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72e6863c-e0ab-48c4-9aa5-10eddc6ecd85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58692 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:20:08 AM UTC-5, john wrote: > If you are going to make statements such as you did you must provide > the full details of your problem if you wish to be taken seriously. Well that's a claim. Here's another: your ANS hostility is baby-level and pathetic. It is so bad it actually comes off as insincere, as an opinion you've adopted for social purposes and not because you arrived at it intellectually. I stopped taking it seriously way back at "extension wordlists break standards."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <anon@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 12:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.337673ce3e630286989720@news.virginmedia.com> |
| In reply to | #58694 |
In article <72e6863c-e0ab-48c4-9aa5-10eddc6ecd85@googlegroups.com>, julian.fondren@gmail.com says... > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 5:20:08 AM UTC-5, john wrote: > > If you are going to make statements such as you did you must provide > > the full details of your problem if you wish to be taken seriously. > > Well that's a claim. Here's another: your ANS hostility is baby-level > and pathetic. It is so bad it actually comes off as insincere, as an > opinion you've adopted for social purposes and not because you arrived > at it intellectually. I stopped taking it seriously way back at > "extension wordlists break standards." And you seem to be very confused. The quote you provide doesn't even apply to your odd attack. I have no interest in ANS one way or another and have never said I have. Nor do I recall ever mentioning wordlists breaking standards. (It does sound like an odd thing to say I agree) If you are going to make such accusations please provide the reference link so people can see what you are actually talking about. I suspect you have me confused with someone else. -- john ========================= http://johntech.co.uk "Bleeding Edge Forum" http://johntech.co.uk/forum/ =========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 13:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <396de0b0-cd99-4bbe-9090-a44839dff2ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58573 |
On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:57:47 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: > john <anon@example.com> wrote: > > > > If you get a differing result from the same code you don't have > > a standard system at all - regardless of implementation or hardware. > > > > The only thing totally unaceptable from a standard is a different > > output from the same input. > > I think you don't really get this standardization thing. Andrew Haley was appointed to the Forth-200x committee by Elizabeth Rather because he taught the novice-class at Forth Inc. --- he really doesn't "get this standardization thing" --- he is just loyal to Elizabeth Rather, and she is okay with ambiguity, so he is okay with ambiguity too. All of the Forth-200x committee members were appointed by Elizabeth Rather --- all of them are okay with ambiguity --- Stephen Pelc, for example, refuses to acknowledge the existence of my disambiguifiers for FIND and insists that it is okay for FIND in VFX to be incompatible with FIND in SwiftForth and incompatible (in a different way) with FIND in gForth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 17:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oedk02$gae$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58613 |
On 5/3/2017 3:55 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:57:47 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: >> john <anon@example.com> wrote: >>> >>> If you get a differing result from the same code you don't have >>> a standard system at all - regardless of implementation or hardware. >>> >>> The only thing totally unaceptable from a standard is a different >>> output from the same input. >> >> I think you don't really get this standardization thing. > > Andrew Haley was appointed to the Forth-200x committee by Elizabeth Rather because he taught the novice-class at Forth Inc. --- he really doesn't "get this standardization thing" --- he is just loyal to Elizabeth Rather, and she is okay with ambiguity, so he is okay with ambiguity too. > > All of the Forth-200x committee members were appointed by Elizabeth Rather --- all of them are okay with ambiguity --- Stephen Pelc, for example, refuses to acknowledge the existence of my disambiguifiers for FIND and insists that it is okay for FIND in VFX to be incompatible with FIND in SwiftForth and incompatible (in a different way) with FIND in gForth. > Contrary to the belief expressed here on this list a good part of a standard is to eliminate ambiguity, but not in Forth where ambiguity is a welcomed feature, no wonder Forth is looked down upon by most programmers that know anything about it. But can one expect when marketing people are in charge of the process. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 07:29 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <oeeahc$vs2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58614 |
On 05/04/17 01:04, Cecil Bayona wrote: > Contrary to the belief expressed here on this list a good part of a > standard is to eliminate ambiguity, but not in Forth where ambiguity is > a welcomed feature... No, a standard's purpose is to standardize. Ambiguity in some respects may simply be codified in the standard. For example... The "C" standard doesn't say what the size of an integer must be. That's turned out to be an issue of varying levels of importance through the years, but the "C" standard makes integer size *implementation defined*. That is, "ambiguous". So, is "C" a language which welcomes ambiguity? If so, it's certainly done well for itself. Standards which are established after a language has already gained a foothold and has disparate implementations, will often have plenty of these kinds of "grey areas". Forth is not unique in this regard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 02:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kOSdnS7PQK1YQJfEnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #58614 |
Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> wrote: > Contrary to the belief expressed here on this list a good part of a > standard is to eliminate ambiguity, but not in Forth where ambiguity > is a welcomed feature, no wonder Forth is looked down upon by most > programmers that know anything about it. But can one expect when > marketing people are in charge of the process. What does this word salad mean? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 05:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20170504050857.0b544553@_> |
| In reply to | #58622 |
On Thu, 04 May 2017 02:52:37 -0500 Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> wrote: > > Contrary to the belief expressed here on this list a good part of a > > standard is to eliminate ambiguity, but not in Forth where ambiguity > > is a welcomed feature, no wonder Forth is looked down upon by most > > programmers that know anything about it. But can one expect when > > marketing people are in charge of the process. > > What does this word salad mean? > He said that the purpose of a language standard is to eliminate ambiguity, i.e., to define things. Except, marketers were involved in the Forth standard. So, the process was corrupted and this failed to happen, i.e., not much was defined resulting in ambiguity. Also, Forthers prefer Forth because of it's ambiguity. This is what some would call cryptic, write once, lacking syntax, etc. Therefore, the Forth standard has extra ambiguity over and above that of any other programming standard in existence. It's this excessive abundance of ambiguity which drives people away from Forth. I.e., the Forth standard is completely nuts, and the language drives people insane. E.g., Forther - see "insane nutjob." Now, you've got to admit that's a somewhat funny moniker as it fits in nicely with the newly suggested squirrel mascot for Forth. Squirrels - given their love of tree nuts - are a bunch of "nutjobs." Rod Pemberton -- "Well, many people are really f---ing stupid too. Should we just adopt all their standards?" - George Carlin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 06:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <L56dnS6J1s9ajJbEnZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #58623 |
Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> wrote: > On Thu, 04 May 2017 02:52:37 -0500 > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >> Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> wrote: > >> > Contrary to the belief expressed here on this list a good part of >> > a standard is to eliminate ambiguity, but not in Forth where >> > ambiguity is a welcomed feature, no wonder Forth is looked down >> > upon by most programmers that know anything about it. But can one >> > expect when marketing people are in charge of the process. >> >> What does this word salad mean? > > He said that the purpose of a language standard is to eliminate > ambiguity, i.e., to define things. Except, marketers were involved in > the Forth standard. I think it says "in charge of". But either way, it isn't true: marketers have been conspicuously absent in Forth. > So, the process was corrupted and this failed to happen, i.e., not > much was defined resulting in ambiguity. Also, Forthers prefer > Forth because of it's ambiguity. By BS meter just pegged at the red line. And even if marketers had been in charge, it doesn't follow that they would want ambiguity. > This is what some would call cryptic, write once, lacking syntax, > etc. Therefore, the Forth standard has extra ambiguity over and > above that of any other programming standard in existence. It's > this excessive abundance of ambiguity which drives people away from > Forth. > > I.e., the Forth standard is completely nuts, and the language drives > people insane. E.g., Forther - see "insane nutjob." Hmm. From falsehood, anything follows. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 11:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oefk1b$8aq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58622 |
On 5/4/2017 2:52 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> wrote: > >> Contrary to the belief expressed here on this list a good part of a >> standard is to eliminate ambiguity, but not in Forth where ambiguity >> is a welcomed feature, no wonder Forth is looked down upon by most >> programmers that know anything about it. But can one expect when >> marketing people are in charge of the process. > > What does this word salad mean? > > Andrew. > That word is not in my reply so try something else. I would guess a salad is something you get when a group of people are trying to please everyone so they include all sorts of items that may even clash with one another. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 19:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20170503190319.27001d07@t530.lan> |
| In reply to | #58567 |
On Wed, 3 May 2017 10:45:09 +0100 john <anon@example.com> wrote: > > If you get a differing result from the same code you don't > have a standard system at all - regardless of implementation > or hardware. > > The only thing totally unaceptable from a standard is a > different output from the same input. IEE754 ? Jan Coombs --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-24 18:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Mar24.191244@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #56173 |
Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> writes:
>On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 18:31:09 UTC, Alex wrote:
>> On 3/22/2017 17:59, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Because of the multiple ambiguities in ANS-Forth, there is a lot of
>> > elbow-room --- many Forth systems can be 100% compliant with
>> > ANS-Forth --- they aren't compatible with each other though.
The standard defines an interface between programs and systems. So, a
standard program has to be compatible with a standard system. Talking
about compatibility between systems makes no sense.
>> If a program is written to meet the ANS standard, then a system that is
>> ANS standard compliant will be able to run it.
>
>Yeah, but if you run that same source code on two different (compliant)
>systems and get different results, which one is wrong?
The program may be non-standard. In this case, the standard does not
guarantee a particular behaviour by the system. E.g., the program may
use a word that exists only in one system, and other systems produce
an error when loading it.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-25 13:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Mar25.144957@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #56122 |
Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> writes:
>DPANS94 is the most recent ve=
>rsion
Forth-2012 is more recent.
>- and the first without implementation. I'd claim there is no 100% DP=
>ANS94 compliant Forth ;) Except HelFORTH ;)
So there is, even in your opinion. In practice, I miss the things
that have not been standardized more than any non-compliance that may
exist in systems.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 00:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20170323005811.7acd22c7@_> |
| In reply to | #56121 |
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:01:05 -0700 (PDT) hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 8:06:23 AM UTC-7, Helmar Wodtke wrote: > Just define QUIT as being a word that restarts the REPL and restores > the Forth system to a rational state, and stores the state prior to > the quit in a struct (also defined). > > Also, define QUIT as being deferred and define <QUIT> as doing what > QUIT does and being the default action of the QUIT vector. The user > can then define his own version of QUIT that calls <QUIT> but also > does what he wants. The user can define a new struct that is a child > class of the struct that <QUIT> uses --- his version of QUIT will use > this child struct so it can save his important global variables in > addition to the global variables that <QUIT> saves. > If ANS is pile of crap as you say, then making QUIT correctly functional for ANS and also using "ambiquifiers" to correctly implement ANS is just you wasting time polishing a turd. Therefore, you have no cause to rant about ANS being a turd since you've already proclaimed ANS to be crap. Please top wasting your time and ours on ANS if you don't like ANS. Rod Pemberton -- All it takes for humanity to conquer the world's toughest problems is to hope, to believe, to share, and to do, in cooperation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 00:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20170323005742.1e342c5a@_> |
| In reply to | #56114 |
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 07:43:26 -0700 (PDT) hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 6:13:59 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > When QUIT executes (typically when ABORT or ABORT" call it), QUIT > fails to restore the system to a known state. 1.) BASE still has the > value that it had prior to the abort. 2.) The search-order is the > same as it was prior to the abort. 3.) The current word-list is the > same as it was prior to the abort. ... > The intelligent design for a Forth system would be for QUIT to > restore global variables (such as BASE the search-order, etc.) that > describe the state of the Forth system. Since QUIT is usually the first word executed, why wouldn't QUIT do this already? Rod Pemberton -- All it takes for humanity to conquer the world's toughest problems is to hope, to believe, to share, and to do, in cooperation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web