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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #28437 > unrolled thread

suggestions for word names?

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

Contents

  suggestions for word names? Marcos Cruz <null_email_so_use_my_contact_page@programandala.net> - 2014-02-14 20:15 +0000
    Re: suggestions for word names? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-14 10:30 -1000
      Re: suggestions for word names? Marcos Cruz <null_email_so_use_my_contact_page@programandala.net> - 2014-02-14 22:07 +0000
        Re: suggestions for word names? humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2014-02-15 10:00 -0800
          Re: suggestions for word names? Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-02-18 05:04 -0800
            Re: suggestions for word names? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-02-18 05:45 -0800
            Re: suggestions for word names? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-18 18:17 -0500
              Re: suggestions for word names? Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-02-18 21:38 -0800
              Re: suggestions for word names? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-02-19 02:00 -0800
                Re: suggestions for word names? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-19 02:44 -0800
                Re: suggestions for word names? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-19 20:13 +0000
            Re: suggestions for word names? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-19 03:49 -0600
      Re: suggestions for word names? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-02-15 14:55 +0100
    Re: suggestions for word names? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-14 20:44 -0500
      Re: suggestions for word names? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-02-15 14:52 +0100
        Re: suggestions for word names? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-02-15 15:43 +0100
        Re: suggestions for word names? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-15 12:06 -0500
          Re: suggestions for word names? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-02-15 18:30 +0100
          Re: suggestions for word names? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-02-18 16:45 +0100
            Re: suggestions for word names? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-18 18:17 -0500
              Re: suggestions for word names? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-02-19 09:44 +0100
              Re: suggestions for word names? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-02-19 09:47 +0100
                Re: suggestions for word names? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-19 01:38 -0800
                  Re: suggestions for word names? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-02-19 16:59 +0100
              Re: suggestions for word names? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-02-19 10:11 +0100
                Re: suggestions for word names? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-19 05:39 -0500
                  Re: suggestions for word names? Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-02-19 03:31 -0800
      Re: suggestions for word names? Marcos Cruz <null_email_so_use_my_contact_page@programandala.net> - 2014-02-15 15:41 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#28437 — suggestions for word names?

I'm using the following two pieces of code in several words of mine:

  2>r dup dup 2r>  ( x1 x2 x3 -- x1 x1 x1 x2 x3 )

  >r dup dup r>  ( x1 x2 -- x1 x1 x1 x2 )

Each of them is used in two or three words (customized versions of 'of',
e.g.  'within-of', 'greater-of', etc.), and the list is expected to
grow, so they are good candidates for factoring.

Does anybody know any words (common usage or provided by any Forth
system or library), that do the same than those code pieces?

Otherwise, what word names would you choose in order to reuse those code
pieces in any context?

So far 'dup-dup-third' and 'dup-dup-second' are the "a bit less awful"
names I have thougth, though they are longer than the code!. No shorter
name, with conventional Forth characters, makes sense to me yet.
Perhaps there's no good general name for a too specific code.

Thank you.

-- 
Marcos Cruz
http://programandala.net

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#28438

On 2/14/14 10:15 AM, Marcos Cruz wrote:
> I'm using the following two pieces of code in several words of mine:
>
>    2>r dup dup 2r>  ( x1 x2 x3 -- x1 x1 x1 x2 x3 )
>
>    >r dup dup r>  ( x1 x2 -- x1 x1 x1 x2 )
>
> Each of them is used in two or three words (customized versions of 'of',
> e.g.  'within-of', 'greater-of', etc.), and the list is expected to
> grow, so they are good candidates for factoring.
>
> Does anybody know any words (common usage or provided by any Forth
> system or library), that do the same than those code pieces?
>
> Otherwise, what word names would you choose in order to reuse those code
> pieces in any context?
>
> So far 'dup-dup-third' and 'dup-dup-second' are the "a bit less awful"
> names I have thougth, though they are longer than the code!. No shorter
> name, with conventional Forth characters, makes sense to me yet.
> Perhaps there's no good general name for a too specific code.

My recommendation is to re-think your stack usage and get rid of these 
words altogether. Needing multiple copies of a single item is usually a 
hint that your stack management could be better. For example, if you 
start with ROT >R you get that x1 on the Return Stack where you can get 
a copy of it whenever you need it by just saying R@ (and R> the last time).

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]

#28440

En/Je/On 2014-02-14, Elizabeth D. Rather escribió/skribis/wrote:
> On 2/14/14 10:15 AM, Marcos Cruz wrote:
>>    2>r dup dup 2r>  ( x1 x2 x3 -- x1 x1 x1 x2 x3 )
>>
>>    >r dup dup r>  ( x1 x2 -- x1 x1 x1 x2 )

> My recommendation is to re-think your stack usage and get rid of these 
> words altogether. Needing multiple copies of a single item is usually a 
> hint that your stack management could be better. For example, if you 
> start with ROT >R you get that x1 on the Return Stack where you can get 
> a copy of it whenever you need it by just saying R@ (and R> the last time).

You are right, Elizabeth. I often use 'r@' that way, but this time I
think it would make the code less simple.  This is an example of both
cases:

\ --------------------------------------------------------------
: (within-of)  ( x1 x2 x3 -- x1 x1 | x1 x1' )
  2>r dup dup 2r> within 0= if  invert  then
  ;
: within-of  ( compilation: -- of-sys ) ( run-time: x1 x2 x3 -- | x1 )
  postpone (within-of) postpone of
  ;  immediate compile-only

: (less-of)  ( x1 x2 -- x1 x1 | x1 x1' )
  >r dup dup r> >= if  invert  then
  ;
: less-of  ( compilation: -- of-sys ) ( run-time: x1 x2 -- | x1 )
  postpone (less-of) postpone of
  ;  immediate compile-only
\ --------------------------------------------------------------

The rest of the words are similar, only the inner condition changes.

So far that's the simplest code I've written for the task: to convert
the parameters of my customized of-variants to the pair of numbers
required by 'of'.

I could save the parameter into the return stack and manage it at the
end, but as said it looks less clear to me, because anyway two copies
are needed at the end:

  over >r >= if  r> dup invert  else  r> dup  then

That's why I find it easier to create the copies first:

  >r dup dup r> >= if  invert  then

Of course sure there are other alternatives I didn't think of.

Anyway, I simply wondered what other people do when a very specific
piece of code appears several times, but it's hard to name it apart in
order to factor it out.  In my case, it seems those two pieces of code
are not useful enough for other words, so a specific name, related to
this group of of-variants, will be the solution. 

Thank you.

-- 
Marcos Cruz
http://programandala.net

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

#28457

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 12:07:03 AM UTC+2, Marcos Cruz wrote:
> En/Je/On 2014-02-14, Elizabeth D. Rather escribió/skribis/wrote:
> 
> > On 2/14/14 10:15 AM, Marcos Cruz wrote:
> 
> >>    2>r dup dup 2r>  ( x1 x2 x3 -- x1 x1 x1 x2 x3 )
> 
> >>
> 
> >>    >r dup dup r>  ( x1 x2 -- x1 x1 x1 x2 )
> 
> 
> 
> > My recommendation is to re-think your stack usage and get rid of these 
> 
> > words altogether. Needing multiple copies of a single item is usually a 
> 
> > hint that your stack management could be better. For example, if you 
> 
> > start with ROT >R you get that x1 on the Return Stack where you can get 
> 
> > a copy of it whenever you need it by just saying R@ (and R> the last time).
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, Elizabeth. I often use 'r@' that way, but this time I
> 
> think it would make the code less simple.  This is an example of both
> 
> cases:
> 
> 
> 
> \ --------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> : (within-of)  ( x1 x2 x3 -- x1 x1 | x1 x1' )
> 
>   2>r dup dup 2r> within 0= if  invert  then
> 
>   ;
> 
> : within-of  ( compilation: -- of-sys ) ( run-time: x1 x2 x3 -- | x1 )
> 
>   postpone (within-of) postpone of
> 
>   ;  immediate compile-only
> 
> 
> 
> : (less-of)  ( x1 x2 -- x1 x1 | x1 x1' )
> 
>   >r dup dup r> >= if  invert  then
> 
>   ;
> 
> : less-of  ( compilation: -- of-sys ) ( run-time: x1 x2 -- | x1 )
> 
>   postpone (less-of) postpone of
> 
>   ;  immediate compile-only
> 
> \ --------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of the words are similar, only the inner condition changes.
> 
> 
> 
> So far that's the simplest code I've written for the task: to convert
> 
> the parameters of my customized of-variants to the pair of numbers
> 
> required by 'of'.
> 
> 
> 
> I could save the parameter into the return stack and manage it at the
> 
> end, but as said it looks less clear to me, because anyway two copies
> 
> are needed at the end:
> 
> 
> 
>   over >r >= if  r> dup invert  else  r> dup  then
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I find it easier to create the copies first:
> 
> 
> 
>   >r dup dup r> >= if  invert  then
> 
> 
> 
> Of course sure there are other alternatives I didn't think of.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I simply wondered what other people do when a very specific
> 
> piece of code appears several times, but it's hard to name it apart in
> 
> order to factor it out.  In my case, it seems those two pieces of code
> 
> are not useful enough for other words, so a specific name, related to
> 
> this group of of-variants, will be the solution. 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Marcos Cruz
> 
> http://programandala.net

Hi!

For a word with stack effect ( a b c -- a a b c )
I would use sequence 'ROT DUP 2SWAP'.
Now that I know you use gforth, after see-ing 'OF':

: within-of
  1+ >R ]] ROT DUP 2SWAP WITHIN IF DROP [[ R>
; IMMEDIATE COMPILE-ONLY

Do not know if deserve a definition that sequence:
: UNDER2  ROT DUP 2SWAP ;

Have a nice day,
humptydumpty

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

#28520

My additional stack words are:

nip ( n1 n2 - n2 )
under ( n1 n2 - n1 n1 n2 )
tuck ( n1 n2 - n2 n1 n2 )
drup ( n1 n2 - n1 n1 )
dip ( n1 n2 - n2 n2 )

so nup would be my under. What's the better name? under or nup ?

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

#28523

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:04:07 PM UTC+1, Stefan Mauerhofer wrote:
> My additional stack words are: 
> nip ( n1 n2 - n2 ) 
> under ( n1 n2 - n1 n1 n2 ) 
> tuck ( n1 n2 - n2 n1 n2 ) 
> drup ( n1 n2 - n1 n1 ) 
> dip ( n1 n2 - n2 n2 ) 
> so nup would be my under. What's the better name? under or nup ?

Keep nip and tuck. Forget the rest fo them. We are serious.

-marcel

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

#28542

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:04:07 -0500, Stefan Mauerhofer  
<smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> wrote:

> My additional stack words are:
>
> nip ( n1 n2 - n2 )
> under ( n1 n2 - n1 n1 n2 )
> tuck ( n1 n2 - n2 n1 n2 )
> drup ( n1 n2 - n1 n1 )
> dip ( n1 n2 - n2 n2 )
>
> so nup would be my under. What's the better name? under or nup ?


The only other place I've seen them is as Rob Chapman's Stack Quarks,
but I'm not as familiar as others here ...

Quarks
http://clubweb.interbaun.com/~rc/Timbre/ContentPages/Timbre/SQP/StackQuarksPaper.html


I think those are equivalent to his, but a few are named differently:

UNDER -> NUP
DRUP -> DIP
DIP -> DRIP


As Marcel pointed out, it's convenient to have NIP and TUCK, but the
others really aren't needed for Forth.


Normally, interpreted Forths only kept one stack item kept in registers,
i.e., TOS top-of-stack.  If you have two stack items kept in registers,
Quarks become convenient to define Forth stack operations in terms of a
stack and two registers.  However, they aren't generally needed for coding
in Forth.


Rod Pemberton

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

#28557

Am Mittwoch, 19. Februar 2014 00:17:16 UTC+1 schrieb Rod Pemberton:
> 
> 
> 
> The only other place I've seen them is as Rob Chapman's Stack Quarks,
> 
> but I'm not as familiar as others here ...
> 
> 
> 
> Quarks
> 
> http://clubweb.interbaun.com/~rc/Timbre/ContentPages/Timbre/SQP/StackQuarksPaper.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think those are equivalent to his, but a few are named differently:
> 
> 
> 
> UNDER -> NUP
> 
> DRUP -> DIP
> 
> DIP -> DRIP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Marcel pointed out, it's convenient to have NIP and TUCK, but the
> 
> others really aren't needed for Forth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normally, interpreted Forths only kept one stack item kept in registers,
> 
> i.e., TOS top-of-stack.  If you have two stack items kept in registers,
> 
> Quarks become convenient to define Forth stack operations in terms of a
> 
> stack and two registers.  However, they aren't generally needed for coding
> 
> in Forth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton

Thanks Rod. 

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

#28569

Ooh! This looks like fun! 
: nip ( n1 n2 - n2 ) swap drop ; 
: under ( n1 n2 - n1 n1 n2 ) over swap ;
: drup ( n1 n2 - n1 n1 ) drop swap ;
: dip ( n1 n2 - n2 n2 ) nip dup ;

dip and drup look fairly useless to me. I'd have to look their names up to see what they do. For dip I'd just write nip dup. Then I don't have to go look up the definition. Under looks like it might be useful and potentially save some >r ... r> phrases. I quite like it. Though the return stack makes a useful single-cell local variable.

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

#28572

Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> : drup ( n1 n2 - n1 n1 ) drop swap ;
> : dip ( n1 n2 - n2 n2 ) nip dup ;
> dip and drup look fairly useless to me.

I think the idea of the stack quarks paper was to make a word for each
of the possible combinators taking up to 2 elements from the stack, and
putting back up to 2, or something like that.

In practical terms when the stack juggling gets this intricate, it's
time to lose your fear of locals ;-)

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

#28589

In article <52a506b5-f180-4058-a403-b06a06be34f7@googlegroups.com>,
Mark Wills  <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Ooh! This looks like fun!
>: nip ( n1 n2 - n2 ) swap drop ;
>: under ( n1 n2 - n1 n1 n2 ) over swap ;
>: drup ( n1 n2 - n1 n1 ) drop swap ;
>: dip ( n1 n2 - n2 n2 ) nip dup ;
>
>dip and drup look fairly useless to me. I'd have to look their names up
>to see what they do. For dip I'd just write nip dup. Then I don't have
>to go look up the definition. Under looks like it might be useful and
>potentially save some >r ... r> phrases. I quite like it. Though the
>return stack makes a useful single-cell local variable.

It is not just that. Sometimes i have a sequence and an intermediate result
that I need later. I find it easier to tick one result away, and get
it back later, compared to disturbing the order of the data stack
to get duplicates.

........... DUP >R ......................   R> MAX ;

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]

#28567

Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> wrote:
> My additional stack words are:
> 
> nip ( n1 n2 - n2 )
> under ( n1 n2 - n1 n1 n2 )
> tuck ( n1 n2 - n2 n1 n2 )
> drup ( n1 n2 - n1 n1 )
> dip ( n1 n2 - n2 n2 )

Surely most of this cruft can be avoided by judicious use of the
return stack.

Andrew.

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

#28450

Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:

> My recommendation is to re-think your stack usage and get rid of these
> words altogether. Needing multiple copies of a single item is usually a
> hint that your stack management could be better. For example, if you
> start with ROT >R you get that x1 on the Return Stack where you can get
> a copy of it whenever you need it by just saying R@ (and R> the last
> time).
Agree completely! I learned this trick a long time ago when reading an
article on the FIG editor. The writer stated that you could "use" R@ as a
kind of local variable. It's been a life saver since, e.g. when using it as
the address of a structure when you need it to access multiple member. You
can't always do DUP, so R@ is quite a viable alternative.

Hans Bezemer

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

#28444

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:15:48 -0500, Marcos Cruz  
<null_email_so_use_my_contact_page@programandala.net> wrote:

>
> I'm using the following two pieces of code in several words of mine:
>
>   2>r dup dup 2r>  ( x1 x2 x3 -- x1 x1 x1 x2 x3 )
>
>   >r dup dup r>  ( x1 x2 -- x1 x1 x1 x2 )
>
> Each of them is used in two or three words (customized versions of 'of',
> e.g.  'within-of', 'greater-of', etc.), and the list is expected to
> grow, so they are good candidates for factoring.
>
> Does anybody know any words (common usage or provided by any Forth
> system or library), that do the same than those code pieces?
>

I don't know what they'd be called, but you might be able
to improve that code slightly.

For the fist sequence "2>r dup dup 2r>", the 2>r
and 2r> are likely to be very expensive operations
timewise.  That sequence is also equivalent to this:

   >r nup nup r>

Even though nup isn't likely to be very efficient either,
eliminating 2>r and 2r> is likely to speed things up.

The second sequence ">r dup dup r>" is:

   nup nup

It's not likely that "nup nup" outperforms
">r dup dup r>" for your Forth, but it might.
This depends on how efficiently nup is implemented
as compared to how efficiently >r and r> are and how
much call overhead per Forth word there is.

   nup ( x1 x2 -- x1 x1 x2 )


Rod Pemberton

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

#28449

Rod Pemberton wrote:

> It's not likely that "nup nup" outperforms
> ">r dup dup r>" for your Forth, but it might.
> This depends on how efficiently nup is implemented.
Marcos, may be this dictionary entry says it all:

nup
nup - (1) interjection (2)adjective:

1. Negative, no, to convey disagreeance.
2. Gives the subject a bad characteristic, feeling or appearance.
In the case of (2) this is a contextual word, ie: the use of the words
around it define the exact meaning of nup.

Examples:
"You're nup" - The person you are saying this to is in some way undesirable,
or is saying/performing/has performed something undesirable.
"Nup. This is nup." - Use of both word types is achieved here. The first
occurance (1) showing disagreeance to something, followed by (2) to show
that "this" is "nup" or undesirable. 

Hans Bezemer

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

#28451

Op Sat, 15 Feb 2014 14:52:15 +0100 schreef Hans Bezemer:

> Rod Pemberton wrote:
> 
>> It's not likely that "nup nup" outperforms
>> ">r dup dup r>" for your Forth, but it might.
>> This depends on how efficiently nup is implemented.
> Marcos, may be this dictionary entry says it all:
> 
> nup
> nup - (1) interjection (2)adjective:
> 
> 1. Negative, no, to convey disagreeance.
> 2. Gives the subject a bad characteristic, feeling or appearance.
> In the case of (2) this is a contextual word, ie: the use of the words
> around it define the exact meaning of nup.
> 
> Examples:
> "You're nup" - The person you are saying this to is in some way undesirable,
> or is saying/performing/has performed something undesirable.
> "Nup. This is nup." - Use of both word types is achieved here. The first
> occurance (1) showing disagreeance to something, followed by (2) to show
> that "this" is "nup" or undesirable. 
> 
> Hans Bezemer

yes, nip it in the bud and tuck it deep in /dev/null

-- 
Coos

CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications
http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html 

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

#28455

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:52:15 -0500, Hans Bezemer  
<the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
>

>> It's not likely that "nup nup" outperforms
>> ">r dup dup r>" for your Forth, but it might.
>> This depends on how efficiently nup is implemented.
>
> Marcos, may be this dictionary entry says it all:
>
> nup
> nup - (1) interjection (2)adjective:
>
> [odd reply snipped]

I have no idea what this is in reply to ...

You are aware that a well respected Forther,
Rob Chapman, PHD/EE, member of the Green Arrays
team, notable for Timbre, botForth, Stack Quarks,
C without C, various Forth research papers published
in the Rochester Forth conference, etc, called it NUP,
yes?

You are also aware that Philip Koopman, another well
respected Forther, author of "Stack Computers: the
new wave", whose papers were in Journal of Forth
Applications and Research, calls it UNDER, yes?

So, I don't know what you're all riled up about.

Anyway, NUP or UNDER is equivalent to OVER SWAP.

So, it looks like we just need Anton's name for it ...

I'm really a bit surprised I have to teach Hans and
Coos this.  I suspect you two been here long enough
to have communicated with Mr. Chapman in person,
especially since I'm the C guy here...


Chapman's botForth NUP 1990
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.forth/NfI-3wmPiPQ/S-nTM01lSIAJ

Rob Chapman
http://clubweb.interbaun.com/~rc/

Philip Koopman
http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/stack.html

RC's Stack Quarks
http://clubweb.interbaun.com/~rc/Timbre/ContentPages/Timbre/SQP/StackQuarksPaper.html

RC's Timbre
http://clubweb.interbaun.com/~rc/Timbre/


Rod Pemberton

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

#28456

Op Sat, 15 Feb 2014 12:06:16 -0500 schreef Rod Pemberton:

> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:52:15 -0500, Hans Bezemer  
> <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>
> 
>>> It's not likely that "nup nup" outperforms
>>> ">r dup dup r>" for your Forth, but it might.
>>> This depends on how efficiently nup is implemented.
>>
>> Marcos, may be this dictionary entry says it all:
>>
>> nup
>> nup - (1) interjection (2)adjective:
>>
>> [odd reply snipped]
> 
> I have no idea what this is in reply to ...
> 
> You are aware that a well respected Forther,
> Rob Chapman, PHD/EE, member of the Green Arrays
> team, notable for Timbre, botForth, Stack Quarks,
> C without C, various Forth research papers published
> in the Rochester Forth conference, etc, called it NUP,
> yes?
> 
> You are also aware that Philip Koopman, another well
> respected Forther, author of "Stack Computers: the
> new wave", whose papers were in Journal of Forth
> Applications and Research, calls it UNDER, yes?
> 
> So, I don't know what you're all riled up about.
> 
> Anyway, NUP or UNDER is equivalent to OVER SWAP.
> 
> So, it looks like we just need Anton's name for it ...
> 
> I'm really a bit surprised I have to teach Hans and
> Coos this.  I suspect you two been here long enough
> to have communicated with Mr. Chapman in person,
> especially since I'm the C guy here...
> 
> 
> Chapman's botForth NUP 1990
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.forth/NfI-3wmPiPQ/S-nTM01lSIAJ
> 
> Rob Chapman
> http://clubweb.interbaun.com/~rc/
> 
> Philip Koopman
> http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/stack.html
> 
> RC's Stack Quarks
> http://clubweb.interbaun.com/~rc/Timbre/ContentPages/Timbre/SQP/StackQuarksPaper.html
> 
> RC's Timbre
> http://clubweb.interbaun.com/~rc/Timbre/
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton

I have no knowlegde about Timbre and the only mr. Chapman I know of has to
do with (Monty) Python.

In historic times (eighties) we had first : SWAPDROP SWAP DROP ;
Later we had : UNDER SWAP DROP ;
And now we have, ANS, : NIP SWAP DROP ;

Why would I use : UNDER OVER SWAP ; ?

I'm satisfied with NIP and TUCK.
Or multiples like 2SWAP 2DUP 2DUP and I can live without 2ROT.
-- 
Coos

CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications
http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html 

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

#28528

Rod Pemberton wrote:

> You are aware that a well respected Forther,
> Rob Chapman, PHD/EE, member of the Green Arrays
> team, notable for Timbre, botForth, Stack Quarks,
> C without C, various Forth research papers published
> in the Rochester Forth conference, etc, called it NUP,
> yes?
 
> You are also aware that Philip Koopman, another well
> respected Forther, author of "Stack Computers: the
> new wave", whose papers were in Journal of Forth
> Applications and Research, calls it UNDER, yes?

Are you aware that Chuck Moore, the very first Forther in the world has
repeatedly stated in public that he hates words that don't mean anything?

Are you aware that Chuck Moore, the INVENTOR of Forth even eradicated LOGIN
in favor of I'M, stating that there is no such word in the English
language?

Are you aware, that Hans Bezemer, designer of 4tH, has published in several
Forth magazines, and has the irritating habit of - when he's confronted
with a "new" Forth word - looking it up in several dictionaries in order to
find what it means AND to test it well qualifies the Moore criterium?

Weren't aware of this? Shame on you. Now you know.

Hans Bezemer

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

#28543

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:45:10 -0500, Hans Bezemer  
<the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton wrote:

>> You are aware that a well respected Forther,
>> Rob Chapman, PHD/EE, member of the Green Arrays
>> team, notable for Timbre, botForth, Stack Quarks,
>> C without C, various Forth research papers published
>> in the Rochester Forth conference, etc, called it NUP,
>> yes?
>
>> You are also aware that Philip Koopman, another well
>> respected Forther, author of "Stack Computers: the
>> new wave", whose papers were in Journal of Forth
>> Applications and Research, calls it UNDER, yes?
>
> Are you aware that Chuck Moore, the very first Forther in
> the world has repeatedly stated in public that he hates
> words that don't mean anything?
>

No.  He's not a talkative guy ...  So, did he actually say that?

Seriously, you have to question someone's comprehension if they
believe words, even meaningless words, have no meaning ...


Rod Pemberton

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web