Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #58497 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-02 15:27 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-05-04 10:07 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 177 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-02 15:27 +0100
Recognizers discussion lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 07:52 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 08:19 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 08:27 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-02 19:55 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 02:38 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-04 15:16 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-02 17:05 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-02 17:23 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-02 17:26 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-02 13:03 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 12:44 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-03 04:36 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-04 13:28 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 09:13 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-02 12:35 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-02 18:53 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-02 13:10 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-02 19:22 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-05-02 22:53 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-05-03 07:39 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 10:58 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-04 13:53 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-05-06 01:21 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 00:22 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-05-06 23:05 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 22:36 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-03 04:38 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion minforth@arcor.de - 2017-05-03 04:49 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 05:03 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-03 09:02 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 07:45 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-03 11:24 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 09:45 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 10:08 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-05-09 15:56 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 18:37 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 11:07 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 20:55 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 02:47 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-04 13:07 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 07:59 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-04 17:38 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 12:42 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 02:43 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-04 13:05 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 15:10 +0300
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-04 13:25 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 15:33 +0300
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 08:05 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-05-09 15:54 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-09 11:10 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-05-10 11:49 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-04 16:14 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 13:02 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-05-05 23:29 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-07 03:56 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-05-07 22:42 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-08 04:08 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 08:51 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 09:38 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 09:59 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 10:16 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-05-03 22:04 +0200
Re: Recognizers discussion minforth@arcor.de - 2017-05-03 22:09 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 19:50 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-05-07 21:33 -1000
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-08 04:12 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 20:21 -0700
FP stack (was: Recognizers discussion) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-08 12:35 +0000
Re: FP stack (was: Recognizers discussion) Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 20:50 -0700
Re: FP stack Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-09 03:39 -0500
Re: FP stack Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 20:59 -0700
Re: FP stack Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 00:03 -0700
Re: FP stack Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-10 08:10 +0100
Re: FP stack "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-05-09 21:24 -1000
Re: FP stack Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 00:37 -0700
Re: FP stack "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-05-09 22:53 -1000
Re: FP stack Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-10 08:53 +0100
Re: FP stack Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:00 +0300
Re: FP stack Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-10 01:02 -0700
Re: FP stack Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:06 +0300
Re: FP stack anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-10 09:58 +0000
Re: FP stack Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 14:17 +0300
Re: FP stack Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-10 13:09 +0100
Re: FP stack anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-10 15:05 +0000
Re: FP stack albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-05-10 11:43 +0200
Re: FP stack "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-10 18:34 +1000
Re: FP stack anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-10 09:45 +0000
Re: FP stack "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-11 19:13 +1000
Re: FP stack Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-11 04:50 -0500
Re: FP stack anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-11 16:18 +0000
Re: FP stack Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-11 12:12 -0500
Re: FP stack stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-11 13:53 +0000
Re: FP stack anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-11 15:43 +0000
Re: FP stack Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 08:48 -0700
Re: FP stack anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-11 16:31 +0000
Re: FP stack "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-05-11 10:18 -1000
Re: FP stack Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-11 15:37 -0500
Re: FP stack "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-05-11 17:25 -1000
Re: FP stack Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-11 22:55 -0500
Re: FP stack "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-13 14:24 +1000
Re: FP stack albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-05-13 13:44 +0200
Re: FP stack Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-10 05:58 -0500
Re: FP stack (was: Recognizers discussion) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-09 13:50 +0000
Re: FP stack (was: Recognizers discussion) Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 00:25 -0700
Re: FP stack (was: Recognizers discussion) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-10 11:39 +0000
Re: FP stack (was: Recognizers discussion) Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:49 -0700
Re: FP stack (was: Recognizers discussion) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-09 21:15 +1000
Re: Recognizers discussion "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-09 14:16 +1000
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-03 08:57 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion minforth@arcor.de - 2017-05-03 07:54 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-03 11:30 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-03 14:05 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 18:42 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 02:51 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-04 22:29 +1000
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-04 13:41 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 09:06 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-05-15 12:22 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-15 07:36 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-05-18 21:21 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-05-18 21:24 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-05-04 20:17 +0200
Re: Recognizers discussion "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-05 11:03 +1000
Re: Recognizers discussion minforth@arcor.de - 2017-05-05 00:16 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-05-05 13:15 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-06 16:49 +1000
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-05 21:00 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-05-09 14:17 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-09 15:46 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-05-10 11:50 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-10 13:11 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-05-10 13:49 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-10 15:57 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-05-12 14:17 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-05-02 09:25 -1000
Re: Recognizers discussion albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-05-03 01:19 +0200
Re: Recognizers discussion "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-05-05 15:50 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-08 11:43 +1000
Re: Recognizers discussion "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-05-08 19:17 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-09 14:25 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-05-09 21:22 -1000
Re: Recognizers discussion "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-13 13:33 +1000
Re: Recognizers discussion "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-05-12 21:32 -1000
Re: Recognizers discussion Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-05-13 07:12 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-05-13 14:30 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 11:37 -0400
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-04 17:51 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-05 07:31 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-05 20:35 +0200
Re: Recognizers discussion minforth@arcor.de - 2017-05-05 12:27 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-05 15:03 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-06 16:26 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-06 18:17 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 12:26 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-06 21:39 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-07 03:58 -0500
Re: Recognizers discussion Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-07 10:39 +0100
Re: Recognizers discussion Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-05-07 23:39 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-07 17:38 -0700
Re: Recognizers discussion anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-08 13:40 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-08 13:25 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-08 16:25 +0200
Flash (was: Recognizers discussion) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-07 10:51 +0000
Re: Flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-07 08:06 -0500
Re: Flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-07 13:57 +0000
Re: Flash Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-07 16:46 +0200
Re: Flash Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-07 16:31 +0100
Re: Flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-07 17:16 +0000
Re: Flash Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-07 19:18 +0100
Re: Flash albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-05-07 21:45 +0200
Re: Flash Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 12:54 -0700
Re: Flash Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-07 19:33 +0100
Re: Flash Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 08:50 -0700
Re: Flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-07 17:21 +0000
Re: Recognizers discussion Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 10:07 -0700
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 07:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u7ydnWRLB_crPYTEnZ2dnUU7-LGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #59300 |
Rudy Velthuis <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: > >> Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> wrote: >> > >> > The interdependencies of various parts are overkill; ... >> > >> > This lack of divisibility is a criticism of other libraries too; >> > I've used the Forth Foundation Library (FFL), but again the >> > interlocking nature of the parts is problematic. I have used >> > small parts and still do, but some of it I have rewritten just to >> > gain some clarity in my own code without the overload of a third >> > party's style. >> >> Well, that's libraries all over. They all seems to have complex >> dependencies. > > Some do. Some don't. A good library doesn't have many dependencies, > except on a few basic things. It seems to me amazing that you can say such a thing. The idea of libraries is that they provide a useful foundation for other libraries and (eventually) applications, isn't it? Or is it that you think libraries should only be one or two layers deep? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-18 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0kq50a09fux4000@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #59301 |
Andrew Haley wrote: > Rudy Velthuis <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> wrote: > > Andrew Haley wrote: > > > >> Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > The interdependencies of various parts are overkill; ... > >> > > >> > This lack of divisibility is a criticism of other libraries too; > >> > I've used the Forth Foundation Library (FFL), but again the > >> > interlocking nature of the parts is problematic. I have used > >> > small parts and still do, but some of it I have rewritten just to > >> > gain some clarity in my own code without the overload of a third > >> > party's style. > >> > >> Well, that's libraries all over. They all seems to have complex > >> dependencies. > > > > Some do. Some don't. A good library doesn't have many dependencies, > > except on a few basic things. > > It seems to me amazing that you can say such a thing. It is amazing that you find it amazing. It is true, though. A good library avoids dependencies. -- Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de "The people who have really made history are the martyrs." -- Aleister Crowley
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-18 21:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0kq50d49keac001@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #59301 |
Andrew Haley wrote: > Rudy Velthuis <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> wrote: > > Andrew Haley wrote: > > > >> Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > The interdependencies of various parts are overkill; ... > >> > > >> > This lack of divisibility is a criticism of other libraries too; > >> > I've used the Forth Foundation Library (FFL), but again the > >> > interlocking nature of the parts is problematic. I have used > >> > small parts and still do, but some of it I have rewritten just to > >> > gain some clarity in my own code without the overload of a third > >> > party's style. > >> > >> Well, that's libraries all over. They all seems to have complex > >> dependencies. > > > > Some do. Some don't. A good library doesn't have many dependencies, > > except on a few basic things. > > It seems to me amazing that you can say such a thing. The idea of > libraries is that they provide a useful foundation for other libraries > and (eventually) applications, isn't it? Or is it that you think > libraries should only be one or two layers deep? I don't think in layers. And no, a library is not necessarily the foundation for other libraries. It is generally the grouping of code around a central theme, and there doesn't have to be more than one single layer. Well, of course, underneath most of it is a runtime library, sure. -- Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de Sattinger's Law: It works better if you plug it in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 20:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oefr7k$5u1$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #58646 |
In article <oef7b0$nfs$1@dont-email.me>, Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> wrote: <SNIP> > >This lack of divisibility is a criticism of other libraries too; I've >used the Forth Foundation Library (FFL), but again the interlocking >nature of the parts is problematic. I have used small parts and still >do, but some of it I have rewritten just to gain some clarity in my own >code without the overload of a third party's style. The WANT mechanism for block libraries doesn't have this disadvantage. Compilation for ciforth is one screen, portable over MSDOS/... OSX. It WANT's TURNKEY which is different for MSDOS LINUX32 LINUX64 WINDOWS32 WINDOWS64 OSX. (And WANT's some other things). You may WANT SORT-B for sorting bytes. That WANTs QSORT underneath. If you WANT QSORT you don't get tossed in SORT-B. The conditional compilation is unobtrusive via ?LI type words in the index line. You might like it. > >-- >Alex -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 11:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oegj1t$c5f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58646 |
Alex wrote: > On 5/4/2017 13:29, HAA wrote: > > Alex wrote: > >> On 5/3/2017 14:57, Andrew Haley wrote: > >>> minforth@arcor.de wrote: > >> > >>> > >>>> However things are not so easy when the Forth system source is not > >>>> disclosed,, e.g. encrypted or protected by some other means. > >>> > >>> Sure, but then you're screwed anyway. I've never used a Forth I > >>> didn't have the source code for, and neither would I want to. One > >>> great benefit of a simple system is that you can easily change it, and > >>> you don't have to depend on high priests in their ivory tower to > >>> consider your request. > >>> > >> > >> That screws up libraries. In fact, I'd say this approach of falling back > >> on specific source implementations & systems has right royally screwed > >> up any progress in the area of portable code. Hugh's got a point here*; > >> this doesn't progress the world of portability one inch. > >> > >> *That was hard to say, I'll be frank, but even a busted clock can be > >> right occasionally. > > > > Do you use Hugh's portable library code? > > > > > > > > You mean the novice.fth? If that, then no. It's huge and full of stuff I > don't have a use for. > > The interdependencies of various parts are overkill; you can't use any > of the functions in the bottom half of the monolithic lump of source > because they depend on (some fairly oddball) definitions in the first half. > > It also has (had? I never know when or where Hugh reissues it to fix > bugs, even though he claims never to write buggy software) some serious > pitfalls due to late binding. I also dislike the overuse of ABORT" on > what feels like every second line. > > This lack of divisibility is a criticism of other libraries too; I've > used the Forth Foundation Library (FFL), but again the interlocking > nature of the parts is problematic. I have used small parts and still > do, but some of it I have rewritten just to gain some clarity in my own > code without the overload of a third party's style. In other words the culture of Forth is not to use portable libraries per se. Forthers would rather see what others have done and pick out those parts which are applicable, modifying and refashioning them according to their needs and style. An author of a Forth 'portable library' would be mistaken to believe his code is going to be used verbatim, and the effort put into making the code compliant - perhaps at the expense of efficiency - largely wasted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | minforth@arcor.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 00:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7eee29d6-350f-4907-b55e-70ae661c7b8b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58688 |
Am Freitag, 5. Mai 2017 03:04:03 UTC+2 schrieb HAA: > Alex wrote: > > On 5/4/2017 13:29, HAA wrote: > > > Alex wrote: > > >> On 5/3/2017 14:57, Andrew Haley wrote: > > >>> minforth@arcor.de wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>>> However things are not so easy when the Forth system source is not > > >>>> disclosed,, e.g. encrypted or protected by some other means. > > >>> > > >>> Sure, but then you're screwed anyway. I've never used a Forth I > > >>> didn't have the source code for, and neither would I want to. One > > >>> great benefit of a simple system is that you can easily change it, and > > >>> you don't have to depend on high priests in their ivory tower to > > >>> consider your request. > > >>> > > >> > > >> That screws up libraries. In fact, I'd say this approach of falling back > > >> on specific source implementations & systems has right royally screwed > > >> up any progress in the area of portable code. Hugh's got a point here*; > > >> this doesn't progress the world of portability one inch. > > >> > > >> *That was hard to say, I'll be frank, but even a busted clock can be > > >> right occasionally. > > > > > > Do you use Hugh's portable library code? > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the novice.fth? If that, then no. It's huge and full of stuff I > > don't have a use for. > > > > The interdependencies of various parts are overkill; you can't use any > > of the functions in the bottom half of the monolithic lump of source > > because they depend on (some fairly oddball) definitions in the first half. > > > > It also has (had? I never know when or where Hugh reissues it to fix > > bugs, even though he claims never to write buggy software) some serious > > pitfalls due to late binding. I also dislike the overuse of ABORT" on > > what feels like every second line. > > > > This lack of divisibility is a criticism of other libraries too; I've > > used the Forth Foundation Library (FFL), but again the interlocking > > nature of the parts is problematic. I have used small parts and still > > do, but some of it I have rewritten just to gain some clarity in my own > > code without the overload of a third party's style. > > In other words the culture of Forth is not to use portable libraries per se. > Forthers would rather see what others have done and pick out those parts > which are applicable, modifying and refashioning them according to their > needs and style. An author of a Forth 'portable library' would be mistaken > to believe his code is going to be used verbatim, and the effort put into > making the code compliant - perhaps at the expense of efficiency - largely > wasted. The pre-dominant Forth culture in c.l.f. is micro-optimization, refining the basic wheels all over again. Dont complain, it's intellectually challenging and it's fun. However in a real world environment, the Forth "culture" is about efficiency and deep control of the target system. You don't reinvent the wheels here, you build applications on a reliable base. Most of our engineers don't even know that there is some Forth deep within that base, and they'd give a sh.... They only want their job done quickly and never come back because of customer complaints.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 13:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <adccc37a-6c94-415e-a38b-4ecb53259998@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58690 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:16:33 AM UTC+1, minf...@arcor.de wrote: > Am Freitag, 5. Mai 2017 03:04:03 UTC+2 schrieb HAA: > > Alex wrote: > > > On 5/4/2017 13:29, HAA wrote: > > > > Alex wrote: > > > >> On 5/3/2017 14:57, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > >>> minforth@arcor.de wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>>> However things are not so easy when the Forth system source is not > > > >>>> disclosed,, e.g. encrypted or protected by some other means. > > > >>> > > > >>> Sure, but then you're screwed anyway. I've never used a Forth I > > > >>> didn't have the source code for, and neither would I want to. One > > > >>> great benefit of a simple system is that you can easily change it, and > > > >>> you don't have to depend on high priests in their ivory tower to > > > >>> consider your request. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> That screws up libraries. In fact, I'd say this approach of falling back > > > >> on specific source implementations & systems has right royally screwed > > > >> up any progress in the area of portable code. Hugh's got a point here*; > > > >> this doesn't progress the world of portability one inch. > > > >> > > > >> *That was hard to say, I'll be frank, but even a busted clock can be > > > >> right occasionally. > > > > > > > > Do you use Hugh's portable library code? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the novice.fth? If that, then no. It's huge and full of stuff I > > > don't have a use for. > > > > > > The interdependencies of various parts are overkill; you can't use any > > > of the functions in the bottom half of the monolithic lump of source > > > because they depend on (some fairly oddball) definitions in the first half. > > > > > > It also has (had? I never know when or where Hugh reissues it to fix > > > bugs, even though he claims never to write buggy software) some serious > > > pitfalls due to late binding. I also dislike the overuse of ABORT" on > > > what feels like every second line. > > > > > > This lack of divisibility is a criticism of other libraries too; I've > > > used the Forth Foundation Library (FFL), but again the interlocking > > > nature of the parts is problematic. I have used small parts and still > > > do, but some of it I have rewritten just to gain some clarity in my own > > > code without the overload of a third party's style. > > > > In other words the culture of Forth is not to use portable libraries per se. > > Forthers would rather see what others have done and pick out those parts > > which are applicable, modifying and refashioning them according to their > > needs and style. An author of a Forth 'portable library' would be mistaken > > to believe his code is going to be used verbatim, and the effort put into > > making the code compliant - perhaps at the expense of efficiency - largely > > wasted. > > The pre-dominant Forth culture in c.l.f. is micro-optimization, refining the basic wheels all over again. Dont complain, it's intellectually challenging and it's fun. > > However in a real world environment, the Forth "culture" is about efficiency and deep control of the target system. You don't reinvent the wheels here, you build applications on a reliable base. Most of our engineers don't even know that there is some Forth deep within that base, and they'd give a sh.... They only want their job done quickly and never come back because of customer complaints. Excellent description of Forth Reality - thanks
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 16:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oejrlm$1bn9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58690 |
minforth@arcor.de wrote: > Am Freitag, 5. Mai 2017 03:04:03 UTC+2 schrieb HAA: > > Alex wrote: > > > On 5/4/2017 13:29, HAA wrote: > > > > ... > > > > Do you use Hugh's portable library code? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the novice.fth? If that, then no. It's huge and full of stuff I > > > don't have a use for. > > > > > > The interdependencies of various parts are overkill; you can't use any > > > of the functions in the bottom half of the monolithic lump of source > > > because they depend on (some fairly oddball) definitions in the first half. > > > > > > It also has (had? I never know when or where Hugh reissues it to fix > > > bugs, even though he claims never to write buggy software) some serious > > > pitfalls due to late binding. I also dislike the overuse of ABORT" on > > > what feels like every second line. > > > > > > This lack of divisibility is a criticism of other libraries too; I've > > > used the Forth Foundation Library (FFL), but again the interlocking > > > nature of the parts is problematic. I have used small parts and still > > > do, but some of it I have rewritten just to gain some clarity in my own > > > code without the overload of a third party's style. > > > > In other words the culture of Forth is not to use portable libraries per se. > > Forthers would rather see what others have done and pick out those parts > > which are applicable, modifying and refashioning them according to their > > needs and style. An author of a Forth 'portable library' would be mistaken > > to believe his code is going to be used verbatim, and the effort put into > > making the code compliant - perhaps at the expense of efficiency - largely > > wasted. > > The pre-dominant Forth culture in c.l.f. is micro-optimization, refining the basic > wheels all over again. Dont complain, it's intellectually challenging and it's fun. c.l.f. is entertainment. > However in a real world environment, the Forth "culture" is about efficiency and deep > control of the target system. You don't reinvent the wheels here, you build > applications on a reliable base. Most of our engineers don't even know that there is > some Forth deep within that base, and they'd give a sh.... They only want their job > done quickly and never come back because of customer complaints. I assume you're talking about managers. Well I think that's true in every field. What matters is whether you can trust them to do *their* job.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 21:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oeilek$6fg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58688 |
On 5/5/2017 02:03, HAA wrote: > Alex wrote: >> On 5/4/2017 13:29, HAA wrote: >>> Alex wrote: >>>> On 5/3/2017 14:57, Andrew Haley wrote: >>>>> minforth@arcor.de wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> However things are not so easy when the Forth system source is not >>>>>> disclosed,, e.g. encrypted or protected by some other means. >>>>> >>>>> Sure, but then you're screwed anyway. I've never used a Forth I >>>>> didn't have the source code for, and neither would I want to. One >>>>> great benefit of a simple system is that you can easily change it, and >>>>> you don't have to depend on high priests in their ivory tower to >>>>> consider your request. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That screws up libraries. In fact, I'd say this approach of falling back >>>> on specific source implementations & systems has right royally screwed >>>> up any progress in the area of portable code. Hugh's got a point here*; >>>> this doesn't progress the world of portability one inch. >>>> >>>> *That was hard to say, I'll be frank, but even a busted clock can be >>>> right occasionally. >>> >>> Do you use Hugh's portable library code? >>> >>> >>> >> >> You mean the novice.fth? If that, then no. It's huge and full of stuff I >> don't have a use for. >> >> The interdependencies of various parts are overkill; you can't use any >> of the functions in the bottom half of the monolithic lump of source >> because they depend on (some fairly oddball) definitions in the first half. >> >> It also has (had? I never know when or where Hugh reissues it to fix >> bugs, even though he claims never to write buggy software) some serious >> pitfalls due to late binding. I also dislike the overuse of ABORT" on >> what feels like every second line. >> >> This lack of divisibility is a criticism of other libraries too; I've >> used the Forth Foundation Library (FFL), but again the interlocking >> nature of the parts is problematic. I have used small parts and still >> do, but some of it I have rewritten just to gain some clarity in my own >> code without the overload of a third party's style. > > In other words the culture of Forth is not to use portable libraries per se. > Forthers would rather see what others have done and pick out those parts > which are applicable, modifying and refashioning them according to their > needs and style. An author of a Forth 'portable library' would be mistaken > to believe his code is going to be used verbatim, and the effort put into > making the code compliant - perhaps at the expense of efficiency - largely > wasted. > It's not culture; it's usability. I think they are badly packaged. Example; the FFL. All the files are in one directory, and the filenames are all three (!) characters long. Hugh goes to the opposite extreme; one huge file. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 14:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0kps20bq1b75r003@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58513 |
Alex wrote: > On 5/2/2017 18:35, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > > > > The only difference will be the inability to add recognizers, > > > simple, literal or otherwise, in a standard way. > > > > I don't understand this last sentence. > > > > Andrew. > > > > I mean that we will not be able, in a standard way, to extend number > recognition. Matthias proposes recognizers, and having built a system > that employs them, I can attest to their simplicity and universality. > > All the recognizers I have posted so far are portable and produce > correct results. I can't see any other solution providing that. Perhaps there is none, but I could imagine several other, equally viable, equally simple and equally correct solutions. -- Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de "That is the saving grace of humor, if you fail no one is laughing at you." -- A. Whitney Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 15:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oeskhm$1jg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58890 |
On 5/9/2017 15:17, Rudy Velthuis wrote: > Alex wrote: > >> On 5/2/2017 18:35, Andrew Haley wrote: >> >>> >>>> The only difference will be the inability to add recognizers, >>>> simple, literal or otherwise, in a standard way. >>> >>> I don't understand this last sentence. >>> >>> Andrew. >>> >> >> I mean that we will not be able, in a standard way, to extend number >> recognition. Matthias proposes recognizers, and having built a system >> that employs them, I can attest to their simplicity and universality. >> >> All the recognizers I have posted so far are portable and produce >> correct results. I can't see any other solution providing that. > > Perhaps there is none, but I could imagine several other, equally > viable, equally simple and equally correct solutions. > Then propose away. I would welcome the opportunity to compare, but I'm not smart enough to think of one (although I did engineer the chains number recognizer in Win32Forth, it was never more than adequate). -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 11:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0kptcnq33tfwv006@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58894 |
Alex wrote: > > > All the recognizers I have posted so far are portable and produce > > > correct results. I can't see any other solution providing that. > > > > Perhaps there is none, but I could imagine several other, equally > > viable, equally simple and equally correct solutions. > > > > Then propose away. Nah, too much work. But this is not rocket science, ISTM. -- Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de Whitehead's Law: The obvious answer is always overlooked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 13:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oeuvqs$sm2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58967 |
On 5/10/2017 12:50, Rudy Velthuis wrote: > Alex wrote: > >>>> All the recognizers I have posted so far are portable and produce >>>> correct results. I can't see any other solution providing that. >>> >>> Perhaps there is none, but I could imagine several other, equally >>> viable, equally simple and equally correct solutions. >>> >> >> Then propose away. > > Nah, too much work. But this is not rocket science, ISTM. > Then you can't complain when others do the work, but not to your unrocket-like specification. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 13:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0kptfkt37r7nt001@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58971 |
Alex wrote: > On 5/10/2017 12:50, Rudy Velthuis wrote: > > Alex wrote: > > > > > > > All the recognizers I have posted so far are portable and > > > > > produce correct results. I can't see any other solution > > > > > providing that. > > > > > > > > Perhaps there is none, but I could imagine several other, > > > > equally viable, equally simple and equally correct solutions. > > > > > > > > > > Then propose away. > > > > Nah, too much work. But this is not rocket science, ISTM. > > Then you can't complain when others do the work, but not to your > unrocket-like specification. I am not complaining. I just think that the remark "I can't see any other solution providing that." is a bit of hyperbole. -- Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de "if you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten." -- Jim Rohn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 15:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oev9ip$v30$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58983 |
On 5/10/2017 14:49, Rudy Velthuis wrote: > Alex wrote: > >> On 5/10/2017 12:50, Rudy Velthuis wrote: >>> Alex wrote: >>> >>>>>> All the recognizers I have posted so far are portable and >>>>>> produce correct results. I can't see any other solution >>>>>> providing that. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps there is none, but I could imagine several other, >>>>> equally viable, equally simple and equally correct solutions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Then propose away. >>> >>> Nah, too much work. But this is not rocket science, ISTM. >> >> Then you can't complain when others do the work, but not to your >> unrocket-like specification. > > I am not complaining. I just think that the remark "I can't see any > other solution providing that." is a bit of hyperbole. > It's just me saying what I believe. I can't see another solution. You can imagine several, and apparently it's not rocket science. Perhaps that was just hyperbole. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 14:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0kpw9px3vgmvm003@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58985 |
Alex wrote: > On 5/10/2017 14:49, Rudy Velthuis wrote: > > Alex wrote: > > > > > On 5/10/2017 12:50, Rudy Velthuis wrote: > > > > Alex wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > All the recognizers I have posted so far are portable and > > > > > > > produce correct results. I can't see any other solution > > > > > > > providing that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps there is none, but I could imagine several other, > > > > > > equally viable, equally simple and equally correct > > > > > > solutions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then propose away. > > > > > > > > Nah, too much work. But this is not rocket science, ISTM. > > > > > > Then you can't complain when others do the work, but not to your > > > unrocket-like specification. > > > > I am not complaining. I just think that the remark "I can't see any > > other solution providing that." is a bit of hyperbole. > > > > It's just me saying what I believe. And it is just me saying that I know there are other ways. -- Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de "The secret of success is to know something nobody else knows." -- Aristotle Onassis (1906-1975)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-02 09:25 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <puGdnWMqZa2NQJXEnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #58497 |
On 5/2/17 4:27 AM, Alex wrote: > On 5/2/2017 09:49, Andrew Haley wrote: > > I've started a new thread for clarity. I'm answering one at a time as my > time permits. > >> The proposal allows recognizers to precede dictionary searches, so >> that even if a word would have been found it might not be executed >> because a recognizer got in there first. This will not help >> debugging; it is not a good thing. > > But Forth has never insisted on protecting the programmer from not good > things; qv the "ain't Forth weird!" example of 1 CONSTANT 0 . And a > system with recognizers should, since backward compatibility is > essential, be able to act in entirely the same way as a classical > interpreter. The only difference will be the inability to add > recognizers, simple, literal or otherwise, in a standard way. I'm not wild about recognizers, but I do note that having them precede dictionary searches is consistent with number conversion preceding a dictionary search, which has always been the case in Forth (and is really essential for many reasons). Cheers, Elizabeth -- Elizabeth D. Rather FORTH, Inc. 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90045 USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 01:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oeb46b$d2q$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #58531 |
In article <puGdnWMqZa2NQJXEnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@supernews.com>, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > >I'm not wild about recognizers, but I do note that having them precede >dictionary searches is consistent with number conversion preceding a >dictionary search, which has always been the case in Forth (and is >really essential for many reasons). I thought the following is correct behaviour. Gforth 0.7.0, Copyright (C) 1995-2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `license' Type `bye' to exit : 7 ." THIS can be my lucky day" CR ; ok ok 1 3 + . 4 ok 1 7 + . THIS can be my lucky day :4: Stack underflow 1 7 >>>+<<< . Backtrace: I wouldn't call that "number conversion preceding a dictionary search" ? > >Cheers, >Elizabeth > >-- >Elizabeth D. Rather >FORTH, Inc. >6080 Center Drive, Suite 600 >Los Angeles, CA 90045 >USA -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 15:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0kpmi4x1ikmbc003@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58531 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > I'm not wild about recognizers, but I do note that having them > precede dictionary searches is consistent with number conversion > preceding a dictionary search I don't follow anymore. I thought most interpreters FIRST parse the word, then try to find it in the dictionary, and, if it can't be found, try to convert it to a number. More or less like: https://forth-standard.org/standard/usage#usage:command -- Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de O'Toole's Commentary On Murphy's Law: Murphy was an optimist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 11:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oeoifk$ndt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58707 |
Rudy Velthuis wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > > I'm not wild about recognizers, but I do note that having them > > precede dictionary searches is consistent with number conversion > > preceding a dictionary search > > I don't follow anymore. I thought most interpreters FIRST parse the > word, then try to find it in the dictionary, and, if it can't be found, > try to convert it to a number. > > More or less like: > > https://forth-standard.org/standard/usage#usage:command Perhaps a better comparison would be locals which are searched before the dictionary. More important IMO is whether to implement recognizers in the first place. Recognizers (and for that matter quotations) may represent situations you never encounter in practice. When asked why Colorforth didn't have CREATE DOES>, Chuck responded: "I haven't implemented 'does' because I haven't needed it." Waiting until you have a need before implementing something isn't just a great way to determine its worth, it's an effective use of time and resources. The problems of others, real or perceived, isn't your problem until you make it so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web