Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.forth > #27495 > unrolled thread

PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?

Started byPaul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
First post2013-12-28 23:39 -0800
Last post2014-01-03 14:52 +0000
Articles 20 on this page of 330 — 25 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth


Contents

  PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-28 23:39 -0800
    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-28 21:52 -1000
      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-12-29 11:28 +0100
        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-12-29 23:12 +1100
        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-29 07:45 -0600
          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-12-29 18:33 +0100
            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-29 16:57 -0600
              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-12-30 00:25 +0100
            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-01 13:29 +1100
              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-01 14:18 +0000
                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-01-01 15:46 +0100
              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-01-01 15:26 +0100
                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-03 13:22 +1100
                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 11:54 +0100
                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-06 10:57 +1100
                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 14:07 +0100
                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-06 12:42 +1100
                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 14:22 +0000
                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-03 09:06 -0800
                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 11:10 -0600
                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-04 11:49 +0000
                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-05 13:14 +1100
                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-04 16:35 -1000
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-05 11:35 +0000
                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-05 06:15 -0600
                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-05 15:11 +0100
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-05 10:07 -0600
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-05 21:14 +0100
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-06 04:44 -0600
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-06 12:42 +1100
                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-06 21:51 +0100
                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-06 22:41 +0000
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-07 03:29 +0100
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2014-01-07 11:48 +0100
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-07 12:58 +0000
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-07 15:13 +0100
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-07 10:22 -0800
                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-08 02:20 +1100
                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-07 14:13 +0000
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-09 23:19 +1100
                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-10 17:19 +0000
                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-10 09:02 -1000
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-13 13:28 +1100
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-14 09:05 +0000
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-14 04:05 -0800
                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-14 12:36 +0000
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-15 11:37 +1100
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-13 17:07 +0000
                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-11 01:40 +0100
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-13 11:21 +1100
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-13 01:50 +0100
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-13 12:05 +1100
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-13 03:19 +0100
                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-13 03:36 +0100
                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-12 19:22 -0800
                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-11 17:09 +1100
            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-02 17:06 +0000
              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-02 08:13 -1000
                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-02 18:59 +0000
                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 12:54 +0000
                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 07:19 -0600
          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-29 22:32 -0500
            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 16:46 +0000
              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-30 18:37 -0500
                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-12-31 11:53 +0100
          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 17:21 +0000
            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 12:03 -0600
              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 18:09 +0000
                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 12:43 -0600
                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 16:52 +0000
                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-02 08:32 -1000
                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-05 13:26 +1100
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-04 16:55 -1000
                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-07 12:45 +1100
                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-06 22:15 -1000
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-15 08:39 +1100
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-05 12:53 +0000
                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-02 13:45 -0600
                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-02 20:17 -0500
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 04:03 -0600
                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 13:43 +0000
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 11:53 -0600
              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-01 23:57 +0100
                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-01 13:19 -1000
                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 19:48 +0100
                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-02 19:13 +0000
                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-02 15:44 -0600
                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 23:56 +0100
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-02 15:43 -0800
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-02 15:34 -1000
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 04:14 -0600
                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 17:49 +0100
                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 12:03 -0600
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-03 10:31 -0800
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-03 19:19 +0000
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-03 09:56 -1000
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-04 04:18 -0600
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-04 12:39 +0000
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 21:43 +0100
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-03 13:45 -0800
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 23:10 +0100
                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-03 15:41 -0800
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 22:05 -0800
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-04 04:21 -0600
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? oh2aun@gmail.com - 2014-01-10 06:46 -0800
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-07 13:33 +0000
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-07 08:44 -0600
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 14:52 +0000
                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-08 08:41 -1000
                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 08:14 +0000
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-07 18:41 +0100
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 15:09 +0000
                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-08 20:00 +0100
                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-08 12:45 -1000
                                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 00:16 +0100
                                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 22:34 -0800
                                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 22:41 -0800
                                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-10 23:12 -0800
                                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 23:04 -0800
                                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-10 22:08 -1000
                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-09 02:16 +0000
                                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 04:18 -0600
                                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 11:19 +0000
                                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 09:04 -0600
                                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-10 17:27 +0000
                                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-10 11:37 -0800
                                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? oh2aun@gmail.com - 2014-01-10 12:47 -0800
                                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-10 13:37 -0800
                                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? oh2aun@gmail.com - 2014-01-10 14:24 -0800
                                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-13 16:53 +0000
                                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 14:50 +0100
                                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 09:08 -0600
                                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 18:33 +0100
                                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 12:32 -0600
                                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-09 20:49 +0000
                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 09:10 +0000
                                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 14:37 +0100
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-07 08:48 -1000
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 15:24 +0000
                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-08 08:50 -1000
                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 08:28 +0000
                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-08 16:21 -0600
                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 09:39 +0000
                                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 04:28 -0600
                                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 11:27 +0000
                                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 14:42 +0100
                                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 09:41 -0600
                                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 18:44 +0100
                                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 12:35 -0600
                                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-10 00:20 +0100
                                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-10 05:22 -0600
                                                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-01-10 03:48 -0800
                                                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-10 09:31 -0600
                                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 09:40 -0600
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 21:54 -0800
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-11 03:41 -0600
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-11 13:33 +0000
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-11 11:44 -0800
                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-11 10:40 -1000
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-11 04:11 -0600
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-11 13:31 +0000
                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-11 07:52 -0600
                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-11 19:35 +0000
                                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-12 02:57 -0600
                                          chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-12 03:12 -0600
                                            Re: chipFORTH Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-12 08:43 -0800
                                              Re: chipFORTH Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-12 10:40 -0600
                                                Re: chipFORTH albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-12 18:00 +0000
                                                Re: chipFORTH Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-12 11:18 -0800
                                                Re: chipFORTH anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-13 16:03 +0000
                                                  Re: chipFORTH "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-13 17:21 +0000
                                                Re: chipFORTH stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-13 19:10 +0000
                                            Re: chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-13 02:28 -0500
                                              Re: chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?] Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-12 21:39 -1000
                                              Re: chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-13 03:16 -0600
                                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-12 11:38 +0000
                                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-12 07:46 -0600
                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-13 15:46 +0000
                                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-13 10:45 -0600
                                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-13 19:05 +0000
                                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-13 20:53 +0100
                                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-14 03:41 -0600
                                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-14 13:07 +0000
                                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-14 17:53 +0100
                                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-14 17:35 +0000
                                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-14 08:23 -1000
                                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-14 13:19 -0600
                                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? oh2aun@gmail.com - 2014-01-14 12:31 -0800
                                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-14 21:37 +0100
                                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-14 16:12 -0600
                                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-14 12:18 -1000
                                                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-15 04:19 +0100
                                                  DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-15 17:52 +0000
                                                    Re: DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-15 21:56 +0000
                                                      Re: DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-16 09:30 +0000
                                                        Re: DOES> and flash Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> - 2014-01-17 12:44 +0100
                                                          Re: DOES> and flash oh2aun@gmail.com - 2014-01-17 08:05 -0800
                                                            Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-17 16:43 +0000
                                                              Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-17 20:37 +0100
                                                                Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-18 04:40 -0600
                                                                  Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-18 11:56 +0000
                                                                    Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-18 10:54 -0600
                                                                      Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-18 17:36 +0000
                                                                        Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-18 12:17 -0600
                                                                          Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-18 18:23 +0000
                                                                            Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-18 14:00 -0600
                                                                          Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-18 20:24 +0100
                                                                            Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-18 14:05 -0600
                                                                              Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-18 23:12 +0100
                                                                                Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-19 03:38 -0600
                                                                                  Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-19 14:03 +0100
                                                                                    Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-19 09:17 -0600
                                                                                      Re: DOES> and flash albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-19 15:31 +0000
                                                                                        Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-19 19:48 +0100
                                                                    Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-18 18:11 +0100
                                                                    Re: DOES> and flash Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-19 01:12 +0100
                                                                      Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-19 21:53 +0000
                                                                  Re: DOES> and flash Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> - 2014-01-20 11:32 +0100
                                                    Re: DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-16 02:02 +0100
                                                      Re: DOES> and flash Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-01-16 07:19 +0100
                                                        Re: DOES> and flash Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-16 00:22 -0800
                                                          Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-16 15:38 +0100
                                                          Re: DOES> and flash Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-01-20 09:45 +0100
                                                      Re: DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-16 09:33 +0000
                                                        Re: DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-16 16:09 +0100
                                                          Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-17 03:28 -0600
                                                            Re: DOES> and flash albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-17 11:39 +0000
                                                              Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-17 08:16 -0600
                                                                Re: DOES> and flash "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-17 16:06 +0000
                                                            Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-18 17:21 +0000
                                                            Re: DOES> and flash stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-19 12:32 +0000
                                                              Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-19 09:19 -0600
                                                                Re: DOES> and flash stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-19 18:20 +0000
                                                              Re: DOES> and flash Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-20 01:25 -0800
                                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-14 08:31 +0000
                                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-14 01:33 -0800
                                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-14 10:05 +0000
                                                CREATE...DOES> on program-in-flash systems anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-14 11:58 +0000
                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-11 08:43 -1000
                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-11 19:37 +0000
                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-11 11:28 -0800
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-11 12:24 -0800
                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-03 18:19 +0000
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 22:03 +0100
                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 13:28 +0000
                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 15:09 +0100
                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-02 03:41 -0600
                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 18:09 +0000
                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 04:16 -0600
                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 22:58 +0100
    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-29 22:34 -0500
      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-29 19:30 -1000
        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-29 22:49 -0800
          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2013-12-30 08:48 +0100
            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 16:24 +0000
              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 11:18 -0600
                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 17:32 +0000
                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 12:05 -0600
                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 11:02 +0000
                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-02 05:48 -0600
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 11:00 +0000
            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-12-31 21:42 +1100
          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2013-12-30 09:14 +0100
          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 03:35 -0600
            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 16:06 +0000
              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 10:41 -0600
                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 17:50 +0000
                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 12:21 -0600
                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 11:21 +0000
                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-02 07:08 -0600
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 11:13 +0000
                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 07:36 -0600
                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 15:23 +0000
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-03 16:02 +0000
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-03 08:54 -1000
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-03 19:59 +0000
                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-03 10:12 -1000
                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <st@trstn.net> - 2014-01-03 20:17 +0000
                                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-03 20:29 +0000
                                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-03 11:48 -1000
                                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-04 12:00 +0000
                                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-04 13:12 +0000
                                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-04 08:22 -0600
                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 21:37 -0800
                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 16:58 +0100
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-02 16:41 +0000
                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-02 16:54 +0000
                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 23:22 +0100
                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 23:20 +0100
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 11:56 +0000
                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-30 08:14 -1000
                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 12:54 -0600
                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-12-31 23:15 +1100
                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-31 07:05 -0600
                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-31 09:26 -1000
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-01 13:27 +1100
                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-31 18:21 -1000
                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-01 12:12 +0000
                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-03 15:59 +1100
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-03 00:19 -0800
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-05 13:25 +1100
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-04 19:03 -0800
                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-06 14:08 +1100
                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-01-06 01:47 -0800
                                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-07 12:43 +1100
                                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 13:29 +0000
                                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-08 16:30 +0100
                                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-11 23:12 +1100
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 14:30 +0000
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-01-04 13:57 -0800
                          Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-04 12:17 -1000
                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-04 15:08 -0800
                              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-05 04:57 -0600
                                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-05 09:14 -0800
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-05 12:20 -0600
                                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 13:05 +0000
                                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-08 08:55 -1000
                                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 08:49 +0000
                                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-19 11:24 -0500
                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-01-04 16:06 -0800
                            Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-07 13:47 +0000
              Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2013-12-30 18:29 +0000
                Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 09:34 +0000
                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-02 20:06 -0500
                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 11:34 +0100
                      Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-03 08:04 -0500
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 07:38 -0600
                        Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 15:57 +0100
                    Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 14:17 +0000
                  Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-03 14:52 +0000

Page 9 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 17  Next page →


#27807

FromstephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc)
Date2014-01-11 13:31 +0000
Message-ID<52d145c4.1561442586@news.demon.co.uk>
In reply to#27801
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 04:11:20 -0600, Andrew Haley
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

>Our desire was a programming environment that was just as productive
>and enjoyable as Forth on a PC even when programming the smallest
>microcontroller.

The world has changed since 1988. There were quite a number of
papers on the topic of Umbilical Forths at that time.

Nowadays it is perfectly possible to run a full Forth on the target
except for tools like editors which can be provided by a host.

Our CPU of choice for low/medium volume applications runs at nearly
200 MHz, has 1 Mb of Flash and 192 kb of RAM. The distinction
and tool partitioning tend to be driven by product volume
and cost sensitivity. The choices are different now.

Arguing that people should not want what they say they want has
never been an effective tool. We prefer to offer them both
approaches in the same package and then let them choose.

Stephen

-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27809

FromAndrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
Date2014-01-11 07:52 -0600
Message-ID<XemdnacdqL0q0UzPnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to#27807
Stephen Pelc <stephenXXX@mpeforth.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 04:11:20 -0600, Andrew Haley
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>Our desire was a programming environment that was just as productive
>>and enjoyable as Forth on a PC even when programming the smallest
>>microcontroller.
> 
> The world has changed since 1988. There were quite a number of
> papers on the topic of Umbilical Forths at that time.

Colour me skeptical.  I'd never seen any such papers, but of course
that doesn't mean they didn't exist.  The "talker ROM" had been around
since the seventies, but it was fairly slow to develop from that into
a full interactive environment.

> Nowadays it is perfectly possible to run a full Forth on the target
> except for tools like editors which can be provided by a host.
> 
> Our CPU of choice for low/medium volume applications runs at nearly
> 200 MHz, has 1 Mb of Flash and 192 kb of RAM. The distinction
> and tool partitioning tend to be driven by product volume
> and cost sensitivity.

And so it always was.

> The choices are different now.

The market in which *you* work has changed, but there's surely still a
market for the kind of computer that you might put into, say, a
birthday card.

> Arguing that people should not want what they say they want has
> never been an effective tool. We prefer to offer them both
> approaches in the same package and then let them choose.

I'm not trying to sell anything.  This is a dialogue in which I offer
my opinion and welcome others' opinions, in the hope that we all might
learn something.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27818

FromstephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc)
Date2014-01-11 19:35 +0000
Message-ID<52d19b8c.1583402972@news.demon.co.uk>
In reply to#27809
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:52:55 -0600, Andrew Haley
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

>> The world has changed since 1988. There were quite a number of
>> papers on the topic of Umbilical Forths at that time.
>
>Colour me skeptical.  I'd never seen any such papers, but of course
>that doesn't mean they didn't exist.  The "talker ROM" had been around
>since the seventies, but it was fairly slow to develop from that into
>a full interactive environment.

I delivered one at a Rochester conference at which there were two
other papers on the same topic.

>> The choices are different now.
>
>The market in which *you* work has changed, but there's surely still a
>market for the kind of computer that you might put into, say, a
>birthday card.

If you mean that we have kept up with the market, then I agree
with you. We've already had the internet-connected coffee-machine,
fridge and toaster. How long before we get the internet-connected
birthday card?

It's just a simple observation that as the cost of silicon falls,
silicon becomes even more pervasive and the jobs done with it
become more complex. We try to keep up.

Stephen

-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27824

FromAndrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
Date2014-01-12 02:57 -0600
Message-ID<gZednRL8KceXxE_PnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to#27818
Stephen Pelc <stephenXXX@mpeforth.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:52:55 -0600, Andrew Haley
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> The world has changed since 1988. There were quite a number of
>>> papers on the topic of Umbilical Forths at that time.
>>
>>Colour me skeptical.  I'd never seen any such papers, but of course
>>that doesn't mean they didn't exist.  The "talker ROM" had been around
>>since the seventies, but it was fairly slow to develop from that into
>>a full interactive environment.
> 
> I delivered one at a Rochester conference at which there were two
> other papers on the same topic.

This would be "Cross Compiling - The Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present
and Future", right?

>>> The choices are different now.
>>
>>The market in which *you* work has changed, but there's surely still a
>>market for the kind of computer that you might put into, say, a
>>birthday card.
> 
> If you mean that we have kept up with the market,

No, I don't!  But that's a reasonable question.

> then I agree with you. We've already had the internet-connected
> coffee-machine, fridge and toaster. How long before we get the
> internet-connected birthday card?
> 
> It's just a simple observation that as the cost of silicon falls,
> silicon becomes even more pervasive and the jobs done with it
> become more complex. We try to keep up.

Of course.

I'm not claiming to be up-to-date with current industrial Forth
practice -- far from it -- but I am rather bemused by people using
systems that appear to be *worse* than what I had twenty-five years
ago.

But anyway, we're off the point.  Do your interactive systems compile
directly into flash, as Bernd describes?

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27825 — chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?]

FromAndrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
Date2014-01-12 03:12 -0600
SubjectchipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?]
Message-ID<9cOdnZElhuXzwU_PnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to#27824
By the way, if anyone is interested, there's a much better description
of chipFORTH and its origins in

Extending the Forth Environment to Single Chip Microprocessors,
A. P. Haley and C. L. Stephens, proc. Rochester Forth Conference on
Industrial Automation, June 20-24, 1989.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27832 — Re: chipFORTH

FromPaul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Date2014-01-12 08:43 -0800
SubjectRe: chipFORTH
Message-ID<7xk3e5kv6g.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
In reply to#27825
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
> Extending the Forth Environment to Single Chip Microprocessors,
> A. P. Haley and C. L. Stephens, proc. Rochester Forth Conference on
> Industrial Automation, June 20-24, 1989.

Any chance of an upload?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27833 — Re: chipFORTH

FromAndrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
Date2014-01-12 10:40 -0600
SubjectRe: chipFORTH
Message-ID<kLqdnRJJ3dX6WE_PnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to#27832
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>> Extending the Forth Environment to Single Chip Microprocessors,
>> A. P. Haley and C. L. Stephens, proc. Rochester Forth Conference on
>> Industrial Automation, June 20-24, 1989.
> 
> Any chance of an upload?

I guess I could scan it, but I've been a bit worried about copyrights.
I think that no-one would object, but what is allowed is all a bit
murky.  It really would be wonderful to scan and push the lot; having
it only on paper is a real nuisance.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27836 — Re: chipFORTH

Fromalbert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst)
Date2014-01-12 18:00 +0000
SubjectRe: chipFORTH
Message-ID<52d2d856$0$25285$e4fe514c@dreader34.news.xs4all.nl>
In reply to#27833
In article <kLqdnRJJ3dX6WE_PnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
Andrew Haley  <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>> Extending the Forth Environment to Single Chip Microprocessors,
>>> A. P. Haley and C. L. Stephens, proc. Rochester Forth Conference on
>>> Industrial Automation, June 20-24, 1989.
>>
>> Any chance of an upload?
>
>I guess I could scan it, but I've been a bit worried about copyrights.
>I think that no-one would object, but what is allowed is all a bit
>murky.  It really would be wonderful to scan and push the lot; having
>it only on paper is a real nuisance.

1982 Rochester Forth conference.
The start say
(copyright 1982 the institute for Forth research)
Then they go on
Individual papers may be copyrighted prior.
So they can't make up their mind.

Example of an individual paper.
But then an individual paper is copyrighted then and there not by the
institute:
page 165
Manfred Peschke Intersystems with a 1982 phone number.
"microcomputer in production control and management"
The entire content of this paper copyright (c) 1982 Intersystems.
All rights reserved. Requests for copy permission should be address to
Intersystems. (Intersystems is registered by the patent office.)
This is only 10 pages worth of proceedings.

Good luck contacting Intersystems. I wouldn't even try.

Bottom line, getting the legal stuff right is more work than the scanning.

The only solution is to scan it anonymously and dump it all in the
Torrent/Warez circuit. I vehemently deny on forehand any involvement
in copies of Rochester stuff that may appear there.

They may be gotten on Warez because someone broke in into my computer
where some scans reside that I made awaiting formal permission.
(Oops, starting to scan prematurely can get you in jail if you're a US
citizen.)

Caesar's men are killing us while we try to extinguish the fire in the
library of Alexandria.

>Andrew.

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27837 — Re: chipFORTH

FromAlex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com>
Date2014-01-12 11:18 -0800
SubjectRe: chipFORTH
Message-ID<a9b996fa-fc2a-4b4f-b7af-a148f7e68256@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#27833
On Sunday, 12 January 2014 16:40:07 UTC, Andrew Haley  wrote:
> Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
> >> Extending the Forth Environment to Single Chip Microprocessors,
> >> A. P. Haley and C. L. Stephens, proc. Rochester Forth Conference on
> >> Industrial Automation, June 20-24, 1989.
> > 
> > Any chance of an upload?
> 
> I guess I could scan it, but I've been a bit worried about copyrights.
> I think that no-one would object, but what is allowed is all a bit
> murky.  It really would be wonderful to scan and push the lot; having
> it only on paper is a real nuisance.
> 
> Andrew.

Publish & remain undamned. You (with CL Stephens) own the copyright. The publisher only owns the copyright on the compilation & form of the collection. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27868 — Re: chipFORTH

Fromanton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Date2014-01-13 16:03 +0000
SubjectRe: chipFORTH
Message-ID<2014Jan13.170325@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
In reply to#27833
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>> Extending the Forth Environment to Single Chip Microprocessors,
>>> A. P. Haley and C. L. Stephens, proc. Rochester Forth Conference on
>>> Industrial Automation, June 20-24, 1989.
>> 
>> Any chance of an upload?
>
>I guess I could scan it, but I've been a bit worried about copyrights.
>I think that no-one would object, but what is allowed is all a bit
>murky.  It really would be wonderful to scan and push the lot; having
>it only on paper is a real nuisance.

So much for copyright being there for the benefit of the authors.  But
if you have not transferred the copyright or exclusively licensed it
to someone else, you as the authors are allowed to produce additional
copies of the work; of course that means you have to get the consent
of you coauthor.

- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27872 — Re: chipFORTH

From"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com>
Date2014-01-13 17:21 +0000
SubjectRe: chipFORTH
Message-ID<lb17ae$mkd$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#27868
on 13/01/2014 16:03:21,  wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>> Extending the Forth Environment to Single Chip Microprocessors,
>>>> A. P. Haley and C. L. Stephens, proc. Rochester Forth Conference on
>>>> Industrial Automation, June 20-24, 1989.
>>>
>>> Any chance of an upload?
>>
>>I guess I could scan it, but I've been a bit worried about copyrights.
>>I think that no-one would object, but what is allowed is all a bit
>>murky.  It really would be wonderful to scan and push the lot; having
>>it only on paper is a real nuisance.
> 
> So much for copyright being there for the benefit of the authors. But
> if you have not transferred the copyright or exclusively licensed it
> to someone else, you as the authors are allowed to produce additional
> copies of the work; of course that means you have to get the consent
> of you coauthor.

No. His/her permission is required:

 if the co-author stipulated such a restriction *and* Andrew had been
made aware of it by the co-author
 or if Andrew wishes to assign the copyright
 or if Andrew wishes to exclusively licence it. 

For any other use, Andrew requires no explicit permission from his
co-author.


> 
> - anton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27878 — Re: chipFORTH

FromstephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc)
Date2014-01-13 19:10 +0000
SubjectRe: chipFORTH
Message-ID<52d439ad.1754968675@news.demon.co.uk>
In reply to#27833
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:40:07 -0600, Andrew Haley
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

>Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>> Extending the Forth Environment to Single Chip Microprocessors,
>>> A. P. Haley and C. L. Stephens, proc. Rochester Forth Conference on
>>> Industrial Automation, June 20-24, 1989.
>> 
>> Any chance of an upload?
>
>I guess I could scan it, but I've been a bit worried about copyrights.
>I think that no-one would object, but what is allowed is all a bit
>murky.  It really would be wonderful to scan and push the lot; having
>it only on paper is a real nuisance.

Didn't Peter Knaggs recently post that Larry has given him permission
to put JFAR on the web? If that is so, I would suggest that Rochester
papers are also safe. You could always ask Larry or Peter.

Stephen

-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27850 — Re: chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?]

From"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm>
Date2014-01-13 02:28 -0500
SubjectRe: chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?]
Message-ID<op.w9l60zq85zc71u@localhost>
In reply to#27825
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 04:12:14 -0500, Andrew Haley  
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

> By the way, if anyone is interested, there's a much better description
> of chipFORTH and its origins in
>
> Extending the Forth Environment to Single Chip Microprocessors,
> A. P. Haley and C. L. Stephens, proc. Rochester Forth Conference on
> Industrial Automation, June 20-24, 1989.
>

So, if we aren't interested in chipFORTH, this would could only be
possibly useful for help in putting Forth onto processors architectures
 from 1989 or earlier that are still in use today, e.g., the x86 series.

Yes?


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27851 — Re: chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?]

FromElizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com>
Date2014-01-12 21:39 -1000
SubjectRe: chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?]
Message-ID<r5OdnZr_h_q6BU7PnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to#27850
On 1/12/2014 9:28 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 04:12:14 -0500, Andrew Haley
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>
>> By the way, if anyone is interested, there's a much better description
>> of chipFORTH and its origins in
>>
>> Extending the Forth Environment to Single Chip Microprocessors,
>> A. P. Haley and C. L. Stephens, proc. Rochester Forth Conference on
>> Industrial Automation, June 20-24, 1989.
>>
>
> So, if we aren't interested in chipFORTH, this would could only be
> possibly useful for help in putting Forth onto processors architectures
> from 1989 or earlier that are still in use today, e.g., the x86 series.

If you aren't interested in interactive cross-compilers for 
limited-resource microcontrollers (both current and past) it's of no 
interest whatever.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27857 — Re: chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?]

FromAndrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
Date2014-01-13 03:16 -0600
SubjectRe: chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?]
Message-ID<ddSdncN7pKt9M07PnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to#27850
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 04:12:14 -0500, Andrew Haley  
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> By the way, if anyone is interested, there's a much better description
>> of chipFORTH and its origins in
>>
>> Extending the Forth Environment to Single Chip Microprocessors,
>> A. P. Haley and C. L. Stephens, proc. Rochester Forth Conference on
>> Industrial Automation, June 20-24, 1989.
> 
> So, if we aren't interested in chipFORTH, this would could only be
> possibly useful for help in putting Forth onto processors architectures
> from 1989 or earlier that are still in use today, e.g., the x86 series.
> 
> Yes?

I don't think so.  It has nothing to do with a processor's instruction
set architecture.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27826

Fromalbert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst)
Date2014-01-12 11:38 +0000
Message-ID<52d27ec6$0$25259$e4fe514c@dreader34.news.xs4all.nl>
In reply to#27824
In article <gZednRL8KceXxE_PnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@supernews.com>,
Andrew Haley  <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>Stephen Pelc <stephenXXX@mpeforth.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:52:55 -0600, Andrew Haley
>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> The world has changed since 1988. There were quite a number of
>>>> papers on the topic of Umbilical Forths at that time.
>>>
>>>Colour me skeptical.  I'd never seen any such papers, but of course
>>>that doesn't mean they didn't exist.  The "talker ROM" had been around
>>>since the seventies, but it was fairly slow to develop from that into
>>>a full interactive environment.
>>
>> I delivered one at a Rochester conference at which there were two
>> other papers on the same topic.
>
>This would be "Cross Compiling - The Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present
>and Future", right?
>
>>>> The choices are different now.
>>>
>>>The market in which *you* work has changed, but there's surely still a
>>>market for the kind of computer that you might put into, say, a
>>>birthday card.
>>
>> If you mean that we have kept up with the market,
>
>No, I don't!  But that's a reasonable question.
>
>> then I agree with you. We've already had the internet-connected
>> coffee-machine, fridge and toaster. How long before we get the
>> internet-connected birthday card?
>>
>> It's just a simple observation that as the cost of silicon falls,
>> silicon becomes even more pervasive and the jobs done with it
>> become more complex. We try to keep up.
>
>Of course.
>
>I'm not claiming to be up-to-date with current industrial Forth
>practice -- far from it -- but I am rather bemused by people using
>systems that appear to be *worse* than what I had twenty-five years
>ago.

Have you tried any? An MSP430 is at the power level and instruction
set level of a PDP11?

>
>But anyway, we're off the point.  Do your interactive systems compile
>directly into flash, as Bernd describes?
>
>Andrew.
-- 
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]


#27827

FromAndrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
Date2014-01-12 07:46 -0600
Message-ID<SdWdnV2EGoNRAU_PnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to#27826
Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> In article <gZednRL8KceXxE_PnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@supernews.com>,
> 
>>I'm not claiming to be up-to-date with current industrial Forth
>>practice -- far from it -- but I am rather bemused by people using
>>systems that appear to be *worse* than what I had twenty-five years
>>ago.
> 
> Have you tried any? An MSP430 is at the power level and instruction
> set level of a PDP11?

I'm not talking about the hardware, but about the way it's programmed.
The hardware sounds rather nice.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27866

Fromanton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Date2014-01-13 15:46 +0000
Message-ID<2014Jan13.164601@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
In reply to#27809
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>The market in which *you* work has changed, but there's surely still a
>market for the kind of computer that you might put into, say, a
>birthday card.

Sure, but the point of this discussion is that there is also a market
for computers where a resident Forth that compiles to Flash makes
sense; these systems are not "exceedingly odd".  This is also
demonstrated by the fact that there are several of them, from
different authors.

- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27869

FromAndrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
Date2014-01-13 10:45 -0600
Message-ID<s4OdnVAR-uurhUnPnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to#27866
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>The market in which *you* work has changed, but there's surely still a
>>market for the kind of computer that you might put into, say, a
>>birthday card.
> 
> Sure, but the point of this discussion is that there is also a market
> for computers where a resident Forth that compiles to Flash makes
> sense; these systems are not "exceedingly odd".  This is also
> demonstrated by the fact that there are several of them, from
> different authors.

That's interesting to me, and rather surprising, but each to their
own.  

At risk of repeating myself, I still don't think it's worth
resurrecting <BUILDS DOES> for, especially given that CREATE DOES> can
be made to work even on such a target with some contortions.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#27877

FromstephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc)
Date2014-01-13 19:05 +0000
Message-ID<52d43774.1754399942@news.demon.co.uk>
In reply to#27869
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:45:42 -0600, Andrew Haley
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

>At risk of repeating myself, I still don't think it's worth
>resurrecting <BUILDS DOES> for, especially given that CREATE DOES> can
>be made to work even on such a target with some contortions.

This statement is in danger of being a "proof by repeated assertion".

I have not yet managed to convince myself that I could detect all
the potential cases without having at least a spare page of Flash.
I also feel that the complexity of sticking with CREATE ... DOES>
outweighs the simplicity of adding <BUILDS.

If you believe that you have a full solution that avoids rewriting
Flash, then please let us know of it. Rewriting 1 bits to 0 is
acceptable, except for those processors (and they exist) that erase
Flash to zero.

After all, none of these Flash systems are claiming full ANS
compliance as far as I know.

Stephen

-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


Page 9 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 17  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth


csiph-web