Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #28006 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-01-22 13:52 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-01-26 01:59 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 412 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-22 13:52 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-22 21:57 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-22 14:10 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-22 14:11 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-23 00:14 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-22 14:28 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-23 20:22 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-23 12:34 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-25 22:44 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-25 08:49 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-25 19:40 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-26 23:01 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-23 03:43 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-23 10:10 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2014-01-23 10:31 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-23 11:35 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2014-01-23 13:27 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 05:52 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-23 15:50 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 01:51 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 02:00 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 02:08 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 02:26 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-24 14:23 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 05:41 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-26 00:49 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 03:01 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 05:52 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-23 08:21 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? BF <foxaudioresearch@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 06:54 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-23 16:00 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-23 20:21 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-23 20:33 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-24 04:33 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-10 23:14 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2014-01-24 10:49 +0200
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-24 03:26 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-24 04:25 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-27 22:09 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-28 22:38 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 03:22 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-23 06:52 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-23 16:03 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-23 10:14 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-23 17:42 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 10:42 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-24 15:01 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-23 17:21 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-23 12:16 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-24 09:25 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-24 07:16 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 05:43 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-24 10:57 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-25 03:58 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-27 17:24 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-27 19:25 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-28 03:34 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-24 14:50 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-27 17:15 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-24 21:00 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-25 20:47 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-10 23:36 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-01-24 00:44 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-24 09:20 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-23 10:02 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-23 09:05 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-27 00:43 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-26 18:04 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-26 11:27 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-26 22:09 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-26 15:35 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-29 01:57 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-28 13:46 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-28 12:12 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-30 17:19 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-01 00:40 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-31 06:33 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-31 12:13 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-31 08:36 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-01 00:06 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-31 15:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-03 16:18 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-01 03:17 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-02 13:10 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-02 16:06 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-02 10:43 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-02 18:39 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-03 14:18 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-02 18:49 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-03 09:35 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-02-03 09:56 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-02-03 02:50 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-02-03 03:17 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-03 14:31 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-03 19:17 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-04 12:23 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-03 19:26 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-04 08:05 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-02 19:07 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-30 15:59 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-31 02:34 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-31 02:38 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-30 15:51 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-03 14:58 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-03 12:06 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-09 15:04 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-09 10:56 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-10 15:58 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-10 12:06 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-11 11:22 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-02-11 05:23 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-12 10:54 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-10 18:12 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-10 05:13 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-10 15:44 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-10 10:40 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-10 17:47 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-10 16:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-10 11:09 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-10 17:20 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-10 12:14 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-02-10 22:38 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-11 03:46 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-02-11 10:30 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-11 18:24 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-12 15:02 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-12 11:23 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-13 09:25 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-13 04:54 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-13 13:41 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-13 14:14 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-13 08:41 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-13 15:29 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-13 12:07 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-15 16:14 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-15 13:22 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-17 12:28 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-17 14:05 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-17 09:49 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-17 19:06 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-17 12:52 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-17 22:51 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 04:36 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 09:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 05:01 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 14:19 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-18 08:28 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 17:14 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-18 11:46 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-18 18:20 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-19 17:10 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-19 23:17 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-20 09:55 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-21 20:15 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-22 12:08 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 14:45 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-23 02:29 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 21:29 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-23 22:33 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 22:13 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-24 17:30 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-24 14:38 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-26 12:59 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-26 20:12 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 04:54 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-02-27 12:56 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 06:30 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 05:29 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-27 15:48 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 08:13 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-27 16:23 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-28 11:21 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-28 16:20 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-01 01:51 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-28 23:36 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-01 12:45 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-03-01 13:59 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-01 13:03 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-03-01 07:53 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 10:12 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 08:46 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 10:56 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 10:08 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 11:01 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-27 08:12 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-27 16:23 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-02-27 19:53 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 07:48 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-27 16:05 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 08:27 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 10:45 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-27 20:51 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-01 08:46 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-03-01 16:53 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-03-01 15:06 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 01:50 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-03 17:18 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 02:51 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-04 03:20 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-04 19:12 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-05 03:51 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-04 10:11 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-05 14:09 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-01 11:20 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-01 15:43 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-01 22:16 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-02 04:56 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-02 14:07 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 00:59 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-02 08:20 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-03 03:03 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-06 18:09 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-06 17:26 -0600
WITHIN (was: CASE mis-understanding?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-07 12:51 +0000
Re: WITHIN Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-07 12:13 -0800
Re: WITHIN mhx@iae.nl - 2014-03-08 05:07 -0800
Re: WITHIN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-08 15:43 +0000
Re: WITHIN mhx@iae.nl - 2014-03-08 08:23 -0800
Re: WITHIN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-08 16:37 +0000
Re: WITHIN mhx@iae.nl - 2014-03-08 10:18 -0800
Re: WITHIN mhx@iae.nl - 2014-03-08 10:48 -0800
Re: WITHIN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-08 16:02 +0000
Re: WITHIN Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-09 01:24 -0800
Re: WITHIN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-09 18:16 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-06 21:46 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-07 09:22 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-07 12:28 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-07 19:36 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-06 18:25 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-06 23:52 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-07 10:15 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-07 08:38 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-07 09:36 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-03-02 20:16 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-27 08:18 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-07 13:21 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-07 08:26 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 10:37 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-01 11:31 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-07 13:18 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-07 11:17 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-03-09 20:49 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-27 16:22 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-28 15:22 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-28 18:32 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-01 03:39 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 02:19 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-27 13:03 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-24 01:25 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-24 03:36 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-24 02:04 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 01:15 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-02-22 21:09 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 21:55 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-02-23 00:47 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 01:45 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-20 17:07 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-20 16:03 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-21 04:11 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-21 10:59 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-21 03:26 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-02-21 10:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-21 05:49 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-02-22 13:52 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-22 09:13 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-22 10:45 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-21 20:18 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-22 15:24 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-22 10:37 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-11 03:20 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-11 16:15 -0400
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-12 00:10 -0700
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-22 13:28 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-22 08:56 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-23 01:27 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-23 04:33 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 08:11 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-23 21:44 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 22:48 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 02:23 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-24 16:05 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-02-24 18:15 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-24 18:45 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-02-24 19:18 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-26 12:40 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Tristan Plumb <st@trstn.net> - 2014-02-26 15:27 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 01:31 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-04 16:30 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-05 11:48 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-22 18:28 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Gary Bergstrom <forthprgrmr@gmail.com> - 2014-02-24 08:39 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-24 21:29 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-11 00:44 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-11 00:45 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-23 04:35 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 12:31 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-18 18:19 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 11:06 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-18 12:51 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 14:40 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 08:17 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 04:48 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 13:56 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 11:15 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-18 18:24 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-19 03:46 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-21 15:52 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-22 09:10 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-18 13:09 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 15:03 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-13 15:53 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-14 00:39 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-14 06:38 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-15 15:37 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-15 13:33 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2014-02-11 10:50 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-02-11 10:57 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-11 02:35 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-11 11:47 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-11 13:08 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-11 18:42 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-12 10:54 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-12 05:31 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-12 15:52 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-12 10:41 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-13 09:27 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-13 04:49 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-13 13:54 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-03 12:26 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-07 13:41 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-02-07 01:08 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-08 09:56 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-07 12:15 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-01 00:39 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-01-31 07:29 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-04 23:45 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-31 16:31 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-03 12:35 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-03 09:32 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-08 09:31 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-08 11:22 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-03 13:54 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-31 08:40 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 22:03 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? julian.fondren@gmail.com - 2014-01-29 17:19 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2014-01-30 11:15 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-27 13:57 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-28 14:01 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-28 14:49 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-29 10:07 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-28 21:54 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-01-29 00:33 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-29 03:37 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-30 21:51 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-31 18:44 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2014-02-09 00:34 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-09 22:14 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-11 01:25 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-01-31 17:44 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-31 16:03 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-01 01:55 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-01 11:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-01 08:11 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-02 14:28 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-02 18:28 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-07 13:34 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-07 03:52 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-08 09:41 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-07 18:33 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-02-08 00:31 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-08 11:21 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-08 15:03 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-08 19:58 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-09 08:33 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-09 19:50 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-10 08:42 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-13 16:32 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-02-14 02:36 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-13 23:04 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-13 23:40 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-14 04:37 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-14 09:42 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-15 16:52 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-16 07:46 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-16 08:11 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-16 16:15 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-02-17 09:03 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-16 22:12 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-02-17 02:29 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-17 04:27 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-17 09:36 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-17 09:22 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-17 12:06 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-17 20:18 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-11 01:48 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-11 16:10 -0400
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-14 13:54 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-06 17:03 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-08 09:39 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-07 20:12 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-09 21:33 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 02:38 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 16:17 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 08:54 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-24 09:25 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 20:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-24 11:13 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-24 17:39 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 16:05 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-25 11:46 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-25 16:15 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-26 01:59 +0100
Page 5 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 21 Next page →
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-31 15:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <52ebba6f.183325027@news.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #28181 |
On Sat, 1 Feb 2014 00:40:52 +1100, "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >GForth employs an IF/ELSE based CASE statement. A search of the >GForth distribution files reveals in excess of 300 uses of ENDOF. >Surely those who promote jump tables over IF/ELSE constructs should >be using them. But they don't. > >Given the reality of IF/ELSE based CASE statements in Forth, I see >no good reason to accept such a mediocre one as ANS supplied. I hope that you are not complaining about the notation, rather that you dislike the current implementations. In the best Forth tradition, this is a complexity vs performance trade-off. In the best Forth tradition, changing the notation to suit the problem can be the best solution. If you try this problem again after adding Wil Baden's ORIF to the mix, you may find that both readability and performance improve. My personal opinion is that it is a mistake to make CASE constructs overly complex. I also note that to avoid the explosion of RANGE-OF and friends, many older systems provided ?OF ... ENDOF where ?OF just consumes a flag at run time. It is still there in VFX after all these years. 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]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-03 16:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lcn8ut$mtn$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #28184 |
Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2014 00:40:52 +1100, "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >GForth employs an IF/ELSE based CASE statement. A search of the
> >GForth distribution files reveals in excess of 300 uses of ENDOF.
> >Surely those who promote jump tables over IF/ELSE constructs should
> >be using them. But they don't.
> >
> >Given the reality of IF/ELSE based CASE statements in Forth, I see
> >no good reason to accept such a mediocre one as ANS supplied.
>
> I hope that you are not complaining about the notation, rather that
> you dislike the current implementations.
>
> In the best Forth tradition, this is a complexity vs performance
> trade-off. In the best Forth tradition, changing the notation to
> suit the problem can be the best solution.
>
> If you try this problem again after adding Wil Baden's ORIF to
> the mix, you may find that both readability and performance
> improve. My personal opinion is that it is a mistake to make
> CASE constructs overly complex.
I'm sure we disagree on many things but I didn't imagine performance
would be one of them.
Complex CASEs occur often enough for languages to support them.
Games are a good example where multiple items must be matched e.g.
FleaWas @ case
Head
Segment |or|
Player |or|
Shell |or|
SpiderL |or|
SpiderR |or|
of
FleaX FleaY Blank 0 SetUp
endof
FleaX FleaY FleaWas @ 0 SetUp
endcase
This used ANS CASE and ORing and it looked ok ... until one examined the
run-time code.
Forth has always been about run-time performance and CASE shouldn't be an
exception. Below are disassemblies of the CASE example I posted earlier.
The first uses Marcel's constructs which are based on ANS CASE and OR'ing.
The second uses 'Miser Case' extensions which are trivial but non-portable.
'Miser' retains OF for single cases as it's shorter to type.
> I also note that to avoid the explosion of RANGE-OF and friends,
> many older systems provided
> ?OF ... ENDOF
> where ?OF just consumes a flag at run time. It is still there in
> VFX after all these years.
Languages I've seen support two CASE tests - equality and range in combinations
and multiples as determined by the user. Presumably this is adequate. 'Miser'
allows IF should something more ever be needed.
\\
\ Marcel's ANS solution
see test1
TEST1
( 004AB580 E8BF07F6FF ) CALL 0040BD44 SPACE
( 004AB585 53 ) PUSH EBX
( 004AB586 8D6DF4 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+-0C]
( 004AB589 C7450000000000 ) MOV DWord Ptr [EBP], 00000000
( 004AB590 895D04 ) MOV [EBP+04], EBX
( 004AB593 C7450800000000 ) MOV DWord Ptr [EBP+08], 00000000
( 004AB59A BB20000000 ) MOV EBX, 00000020
( 004AB59F E810D9F5FF ) CALL 00408EB4 WITHIN
( 004AB5A4 0B5D00 ) OR EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB5A7 5A ) POP EDX
( 004AB5A8 52 ) PUSH EDX
( 004AB5A9 83FA7F ) CMP EDX, 7F
( 004AB5AC 0F94C2 ) SETZ/E DL
( 004AB5AF F6DA ) NEG DL
( 004AB5B1 0FBED2 ) MOVSX EDX, DL
( 004AB5B4 0BDA ) OR EBX, EDX
( 004AB5B6 5A ) POP EDX
( 004AB5B7 23DA ) AND EBX, EDX
( 004AB5B9 3BDA ) CMP EBX, EDX
( 004AB5BB 8BDA ) MOV EBX, EDX
( 004AB5BD 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB5C0 0F851F000000 ) JNZ/NE 004AB5E5
( 004AB5C6 8B5D00 ) MOV EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB5C9 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB5CC E82B13F6FF ) CALL 0040C8FC (.") "Control char "
( 004AB5E0 E9C5010000 ) JMP 004AB7AA
( 004AB5E5 53 ) PUSH EBX
( 004AB5E6 8D6DF4 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+-0C]
( 004AB5E9 C7450020000000 ) MOV DWord Ptr [EBP], 00000020
( 004AB5F0 895D04 ) MOV [EBP+04], EBX
( 004AB5F3 C7450800000000 ) MOV DWord Ptr [EBP+08], 00000000
( 004AB5FA BB30000000 ) MOV EBX, 00000030
( 004AB5FF E8B0D8F5FF ) CALL 00408EB4 WITHIN
( 004AB604 0B5D00 ) OR EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB607 5A ) POP EDX
( 004AB608 52 ) PUSH EDX
( 004AB609 8D6DF8 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+-08]
( 004AB60C C745003A000000 ) MOV DWord Ptr [EBP], 0000003A
( 004AB613 895504 ) MOV [EBP+04], EDX
( 004AB616 895D08 ) MOV [EBP+08], EBX
( 004AB619 BB41000000 ) MOV EBX, 00000041
( 004AB61E E891D8F5FF ) CALL 00408EB4 WITHIN
( 004AB623 0B5D00 ) OR EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB626 5A ) POP EDX
( 004AB627 52 ) PUSH EDX
( 004AB628 8D6DF8 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+-08]
( 004AB62B C745005B000000 ) MOV DWord Ptr [EBP], 0000005B
( 004AB632 895504 ) MOV [EBP+04], EDX
( 004AB635 895D08 ) MOV [EBP+08], EBX
( 004AB638 BB61000000 ) MOV EBX, 00000061
( 004AB63D E872D8F5FF ) CALL 00408EB4 WITHIN
( 004AB642 0B5D00 ) OR EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB645 5A ) POP EDX
( 004AB646 52 ) PUSH EDX
( 004AB647 8D6DF8 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+-08]
( 004AB64A C745007B000000 ) MOV DWord Ptr [EBP], 0000007B
( 004AB651 895504 ) MOV [EBP+04], EDX
( 004AB654 895D08 ) MOV [EBP+08], EBX
( 004AB657 BB7F000000 ) MOV EBX, 0000007F
( 004AB65C E853D8F5FF ) CALL 00408EB4 WITHIN
( 004AB661 0B5D00 ) OR EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB664 5A ) POP EDX
( 004AB665 23DA ) AND EBX, EDX
( 004AB667 3BDA ) CMP EBX, EDX
( 004AB669 8BDA ) MOV EBX, EDX
( 004AB66B 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB66E 0F851D000000 ) JNZ/NE 004AB691
( 004AB674 8B5D00 ) MOV EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB677 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB67A E87D12F6FF ) CALL 0040C8FC (.") "Punctuation "
( 004AB68C E919010000 ) JMP 004AB7AA
( 004AB691 53 ) PUSH EBX
( 004AB692 8D6DF4 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+-0C]
( 004AB695 C7450030000000 ) MOV DWord Ptr [EBP], 00000030
( 004AB69C 895D04 ) MOV [EBP+04], EBX
( 004AB69F C7450800000000 ) MOV DWord Ptr [EBP+08], 00000000
( 004AB6A6 BB3A000000 ) MOV EBX, 0000003A
( 004AB6AB E804D8F5FF ) CALL 00408EB4 WITHIN
( 004AB6B0 0B5D00 ) OR EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB6B3 5A ) POP EDX
( 004AB6B4 23DA ) AND EBX, EDX
( 004AB6B6 3BDA ) CMP EBX, EDX
( 004AB6B8 8BDA ) MOV EBX, EDX
( 004AB6BA 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB6BD 0F851A000000 ) JNZ/NE 004AB6DD
( 004AB6C3 8B5D00 ) MOV EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB6C6 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB6C9 E82E12F6FF ) CALL 0040C8FC (.") "Digit "
( 004AB6D8 E9CD000000 ) JMP 004AB7AA
( 004AB6DD 53 ) PUSH EBX
( 004AB6DE 8D6DF4 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+-0C]
( 004AB6E1 C7450041000000 ) MOV DWord Ptr [EBP], 00000041
( 004AB6E8 895D04 ) MOV [EBP+04], EBX
( 004AB6EB C7450800000000 ) MOV DWord Ptr [EBP+08], 00000000
( 004AB6F2 BB5B000000 ) MOV EBX, 0000005B
( 004AB6F7 E8B8D7F5FF ) CALL 00408EB4 WITHIN
( 004AB6FC 0B5D00 ) OR EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB6FF 5A ) POP EDX
( 004AB700 23DA ) AND EBX, EDX
( 004AB702 3BDA ) CMP EBX, EDX
( 004AB704 8BDA ) MOV EBX, EDX
( 004AB706 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB709 0F8526000000 ) JNZ/NE 004AB735
( 004AB70F 8B5D00 ) MOV EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB712 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB715 E8E211F6FF ) CALL 0040C8FC (.") "Upper case letter "
( 004AB730 E975000000 ) JMP 004AB7AA
( 004AB735 53 ) PUSH EBX
( 004AB736 8D6DF4 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+-0C]
( 004AB739 C7450061000000 ) MOV DWord Ptr [EBP], 00000061
( 004AB740 895D04 ) MOV [EBP+04], EBX
( 004AB743 C7450800000000 ) MOV DWord Ptr [EBP+08], 00000000
( 004AB74A BB7B000000 ) MOV EBX, 0000007B
( 004AB74F E860D7F5FF ) CALL 00408EB4 WITHIN
( 004AB754 0B5D00 ) OR EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB757 5A ) POP EDX
( 004AB758 23DA ) AND EBX, EDX
( 004AB75A 3BDA ) CMP EBX, EDX
( 004AB75C 8BDA ) MOV EBX, EDX
( 004AB75E 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB761 0F8526000000 ) JNZ/NE 004AB78D
( 004AB767 8B5D00 ) MOV EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB76A 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB76D E88A11F6FF ) CALL 0040C8FC (.") "Lower case letter "
( 004AB788 E91D000000 ) JMP 004AB7AA
( 004AB78D E86A11F6FF ) CALL 0040C8FC (.") "Not a character "
( 004AB7A4 8B5D00 ) MOV EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB7A7 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB7AA C3 ) NEXT,
( 555 bytes, 129 instructions )
ok
\ Using 'Miser Case' extensions
see test1
TEST1
( 004AB290 E8AF0AF6FF ) CALL 0040BD44 SPACE
( 004AB295 83FB1F ) CMP EBX, 1F
( 004AB298 0F860E000000 ) JBE/NA 004AB2AC
( 004AB29E 83FB7F ) CMP EBX, 7F
( 004AB2A1 0F8405000000 ) JZ/E 004AB2AC
( 004AB2A7 E921000000 ) JMP 004AB2CD
( 004AB2AC 8B5D00 ) MOV EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB2AF 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB2B2 E84516F6FF ) CALL 0040C8FC (.") "Control char "
( 004AB2C8 E91F010000 ) JMP 004AB3EC
( 004AB2CD 8BD3 ) MOV EDX, EBX
( 004AB2CF 83C3E0 ) ADD EBX, -20
( 004AB2D2 83FB0F ) CMP EBX, 0F
( 004AB2D5 8BDA ) MOV EBX, EDX
( 004AB2D7 0F8635000000 ) JBE/NA 004AB312
( 004AB2DD 8BD3 ) MOV EDX, EBX
( 004AB2DF 83C3C6 ) ADD EBX, -3A
( 004AB2E2 83FB06 ) CMP EBX, 06
( 004AB2E5 8BDA ) MOV EBX, EDX
( 004AB2E7 0F8625000000 ) JBE/NA 004AB312
( 004AB2ED 8BD3 ) MOV EDX, EBX
( 004AB2EF 83C3A5 ) ADD EBX, -5B
( 004AB2F2 83FB05 ) CMP EBX, 05
( 004AB2F5 8BDA ) MOV EBX, EDX
( 004AB2F7 0F8615000000 ) JBE/NA 004AB312
( 004AB2FD 8BD3 ) MOV EDX, EBX
( 004AB2FF 83C385 ) ADD EBX, -7B
( 004AB302 83FB03 ) CMP EBX, 03
( 004AB305 8BDA ) MOV EBX, EDX
( 004AB307 0F8605000000 ) JBE/NA 004AB312
( 004AB30D E91F000000 ) JMP 004AB331
( 004AB312 8B5D00 ) MOV EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB315 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB318 E8DF15F6FF ) CALL 0040C8FC (.") "Punctuation "
( 004AB32C E9BB000000 ) JMP 004AB3EC
( 004AB331 8BD3 ) MOV EDX, EBX
( 004AB333 83C3D0 ) ADD EBX, -30
( 004AB336 83FB09 ) CMP EBX, 09
( 004AB339 8BDA ) MOV EBX, EDX
( 004AB33B 0F8605000000 ) JBE/NA 004AB346
( 004AB341 E917000000 ) JMP 004AB35D
( 004AB346 8B5D00 ) MOV EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB349 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB34C E8AB15F6FF ) CALL 0040C8FC (.") "Digit "
( 004AB358 E98F000000 ) JMP 004AB3EC
( 004AB35D 8BD3 ) MOV EDX, EBX
( 004AB35F 83C3BF ) ADD EBX, -41
( 004AB362 83FB19 ) CMP EBX, 19
( 004AB365 8BDA ) MOV EBX, EDX
( 004AB367 0F8605000000 ) JBE/NA 004AB372
( 004AB36D E923000000 ) JMP 004AB395
( 004AB372 8B5D00 ) MOV EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB375 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB378 E87F15F6FF ) CALL 0040C8FC (.") "Upper case letter "
( 004AB390 E957000000 ) JMP 004AB3EC
( 004AB395 8BD3 ) MOV EDX, EBX
( 004AB397 83C39F ) ADD EBX, -61
( 004AB39A 83FB19 ) CMP EBX, 19
( 004AB39D 8BDA ) MOV EBX, EDX
( 004AB39F 0F8605000000 ) JBE/NA 004AB3AA
( 004AB3A5 E923000000 ) JMP 004AB3CD
( 004AB3AA 8B5D00 ) MOV EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB3AD 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB3B0 E84715F6FF ) CALL 0040C8FC (.") "Lower case letter "
( 004AB3C8 E91F000000 ) JMP 004AB3EC
( 004AB3CD 8B5D00 ) MOV EBX, [EBP]
( 004AB3D0 8D6D04 ) LEA EBP, [EBP+04]
( 004AB3D3 E82415F6FF ) CALL 0040C8FC (.") "Not a character "
( 004AB3EC C3 ) NEXT,
( 349 bytes, 69 instructions )
ok
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mhx@iae.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-01 03:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <01b93bfd-c6ee-4333-9fcd-e1e062bf548c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28181 |
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:40:52 PM UTC+1, Ed wrote: > mhx@iae.nl wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:57:32 PM UTC+1, Ed wrote: > > [..] [..] >> My answer was not meant for speed: > > It was needlessly slower. [..] First, the example is using console I/O. Is it possible to slow that down even further by a CASE? Second, CASE is a high-level construct, it's syntax. It says absolutely nothing about the actual implementation of such a construct. You can, for a specific Forth, disassemble the resulting code and comment on that. But if your comments make sense, the next release of the compiler will very likely be doing something else (if it's Forth at least). The only useful discussion we can have about a CASE construct is if it lacks 'convenient' features at the syntax level. Your posting pointed out three such words: COND RANGE EQUALS and WHEN (range-of and ?OF may condense that somewhat). However, in Forth the user can add these words himself, and in some Forths the user can even make sure these words generate optimal code. -marcel at the
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-02 13:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lclg3a$dl0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28200 |
on 01/02/2014 11:17:48 mhx wrote: > > Second, CASE is a high-level construct, it's syntax. It says > absolutely nothing about the actual implementation of such a > construct. You can, for a specific Forth, disassemble the resulting > code and comment on that. But if your comments make sense, the next > release of the compiler will very likely be doing something else (if > it's Forth at least). > > The only useful discussion we can have about a CASE construct is if it > lacks 'convenient' features at the syntax level. Your posting pointed > out three such words: COND RANGE EQUALS and WHEN (range-of and ?OF may > condense that somewhat). However, in Forth the user can add these > words himself, and in some Forths the user can even make sure these > words generate optimal code. > > -marcel > Well said. The rest of this set of posts has a slightly fruitcake dimenison with its discussion on how these things might be implemented under the covers and why that makes the high level CASE constructs "bad".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-02 16:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Feb2.170658@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28200 |
mhx@iae.nl writes:
>Second, CASE is a high-level construct, it's syntax. It says absolutely
>nothing about the actual implementation of such a construct.
It's much easier to compile the standard CASE into an IF ELSE IF
cascade than into an indirect branch; indeed the difference is so big
that I consider it contrary to the Forth spirit to compile CASE into
an indirect branch. Instead, the Forth way IMO is to either program
the indirect branch directly (like I have done in this thread), or to
define a new syntax that can be compiled into an indirect branch
more easily.
My guess is that people have not added such a new syntax because it
only improves performance in CASEs with many OFs, i.e., in huge words,
and Forth programmers avoid that. So such a new syntax would not be
used much, and therefore nobody defines it.
> You can,
>for a specific Forth, disassemble the resulting code and comment on
>that. But if your comments make sense, the next release of the compiler
>will very likely be doing something else (if it's Forth at least).
A lot of Forth systems suffered from cache consistency slowdowns,
because they put code right next to (writable) data; that was a severe
performance problem (much more than standard CASE compiling to an IF
cascade), and yet, it persisted in Forth systems for many years.
- 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]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-02 10:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Zv2dnRHuT_wG6HPPnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28208 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > mhx@iae.nl writes: >>Second, CASE is a high-level construct, it's syntax. It says absolutely >>nothing about the actual implementation of such a construct. > > It's much easier to compile the standard CASE into an IF ELSE IF > cascade than into an indirect branch; indeed the difference is so big > that I consider it contrary to the Forth spirit to compile CASE into > an indirect branch. Instead, the Forth way IMO is to either program > the indirect branch directly (like I have done in this thread), or to > define a new syntax that can be compiled into an indirect branch > more easily. Yes, I'm sure that's true. > My guess is that people have not added such a new syntax How do you know they haven't? Lots of programmers do lots of things. Not so many are motivated to propose their structures as potantial standards or even to publicize them. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-02 18:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lclvsq$81s$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #28209 |
Andrew Haley wrote: >> My guess is that people have not added such a new syntax > > How do you know they haven't? Lots of programmers do lots of things. > Not so many are motivated to propose their structures as potantial > standards or even to publicize them. AFAIK, Chuck Moore uses jmps or so for table jumps, so in ITC, you could define jmps that way: : jmps ( n r:table -- ) cells r> + @ >r ; This fits with the very brief style of ColorForth. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-03 14:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Feb3.151819@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28209 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Instead, the Forth way IMO is to either program
>> the indirect branch directly (like I have done in this thread), or to
>> define a new syntax that can be compiled into an indirect branch
>> more easily.
...
>> My guess is that people have not added such a new syntax
>
>How do you know they haven't? Lots of programmers do lots of things.
>Not so many are motivated to propose their structures as potantial
>standards or even to publicize them.
Yes, and I think someone posted such a syntax in this thread. So,
yes, there were attempts at this. What I meant is that such an
indirect-branch--friendly CASE syntax has not caught on; certainly not
enough to be competition for Eaker's CASE, but also not even enough
that such a syntax is widely known in the Forth community (the way,
say, PERFORM is, or NEXTCASE).
- 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]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-02 18:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <732ae0de-28f8-430a-9528-375ea4119b90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28208 |
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:06:58 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > mhx@iae.nl writes: > >Second, CASE is a high-level construct, it's syntax. It says absolutely > >nothing about the actual implementation of such a construct. > > It's much easier to compile the standard CASE into an IF ELSE IF > cascade than into an indirect branch; indeed the difference is so big > that I consider it contrary to the Forth spirit to compile CASE into > an indirect branch. Instead, the Forth way IMO is to either program > the indirect branch directly (like I have done in this thread), or to > define a new syntax that can be compiled into an indirect branch > more easily. This much is true. The ANS-Forth CASE can't be compiled into jump-table. For one thing, there is nothing in the ANS-Forth document that says duplicate OF constants aren't allowed. Also, the definition of OF (6.2.1950) doesn't require the value to be a constant at all, but it can be calculated at run-time. Also, the action of the OF clause may be using local variables and/or >R data, which means that it can't be a :NONAME function (what Bernd Payson weirdly calls a quotation) and hence can't be given to EXECUTE. One of the goals of ANS-Forth was that implementation wouldn't be standardized. CASE is just one of many many examples of the failure to achieve this goal. BTW: In my language the jump table will be filled with XTs of quotations and the matching one will be given to EXECUTE. This is one example of why the quotation needs to have access to the creator function's local variables. > My guess is that people have not added such a new syntax because it > only improves performance in CASEs with many OFs, i.e., in huge words, > and Forth programmers avoid that. So such a new syntax would not be > used much, and therefore nobody defines it. Andrew Haley is right that this is just a "guess" --- you suffer from the delusion that you rule the Forth world and have seen and done it all. AFAIK, nobody outside of Testra (including yourself) has ever seen MFX. For that matter, I'm not aware of anybody (including yourself) who has ever looked at my novice package. Nobody on comp.lang.forth (including yourself) will look at my Forth language when it comes out --- I'm really targeting people who actually want to write programs, which doesn't describe the comp.lang.forth crowd very well. You only care about teaching your students, not actually writing programs, which is why you want a standard language to teach from --- so your students can pretend that what they learn in your class will be applicable to the real world. > A lot of Forth systems suffered from cache consistency slowdowns, > because they put code right next to (writable) data; that was a severe > performance problem (much more than standard CASE compiling to an IF > cascade), and yet, it persisted in Forth systems for many years. What is your point? You sound like Elizabeth Rather, saying that supporting legacy code should be the #1 goal of the Forth-200x standard --- which inevitably results in the standardization of incompetence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-03 09:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lcnnt1$888$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28213 |
on 03/02/2014 02:49:37, wrote: > On Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:06:58 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: >> mhx@iae.nl writes: >> >Second, CASE is a high-level construct, it's syntax. It says absolutely > >> >nothing about the actual implementation of such a construct. >> >> It's much easier to compile the standard CASE into an IF ELSE IF >> cascade than into an indirect branch; indeed the difference is so big >> that I consider it contrary to the Forth spirit to compile CASE into >> an indirect branch. Instead, the Forth way IMO is to either program >> the indirect branch directly (like I have done in this thread), or to >> define a new syntax that can be compiled into an indirect branch >> more easily. > > This much is true. The ANS-Forth CASE can't be compiled into > jump-table. Fo r one thing, there is nothing in the ANS-Forth document > that says duplicate OF constants aren't allowed. Only the first will match. > Also, the definition > of OF (6.2.1950) doesn't require the value to be a constant at all, > but it can be calculated at run -time. Also, the action of the OF > clause may be using local variables and/o r >R data, which means that > it can't be a :NONAME function (what Bernd Pays on weirdly calls a > quotation) and hence can't be given to EXECUTE. ???? [snip]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-03 09:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lcnp3s$e8a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28217 |
On 03/02/2014 09:35, Alex McDonald wrote:
> on 03/02/2014 02:49:37, wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:06:58 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote:
>>> mhx@iae.nl writes:
>>>> Second, CASE is a high-level construct, it's syntax. It says absolutely
>>
>>>> nothing about the actual implementation of such a construct.
>>>
>>> It's much easier to compile the standard CASE into an IF ELSE IF
>>> cascade than into an indirect branch; indeed the difference is so big
>>> that I consider it contrary to the Forth spirit to compile CASE into
>>> an indirect branch. Instead, the Forth way IMO is to either program
>>> the indirect branch directly (like I have done in this thread), or to
>>> define a new syntax that can be compiled into an indirect branch
>>> more easily.
>>
>> This much is true. The ANS-Forth CASE can't be compiled into
>> jump-table. Fo r one thing, there is nothing in the ANS-Forth document
>> that says duplicate OF constants aren't allowed.
>
> Only the first will match.
>
: x case
1 of ." one" endof
1- 1 of ." Second one" endof
endcase
;
1 x one ok
2 x Second one ok
--
Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-03 02:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86725010-b632-49fd-ab39-69efd78948ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28218 |
On Monday, February 3, 2014 10:56:14 AM UTC+1, Gerry wrote: > On 03/02/2014 09:35, Alex McDonald wrote: [..] >> Only the first will match. > : x case 1 of ." one" endof > 1- 1 of ." Second one" endof > endcase ; > 1 x one ok > 2 x Second one ok Good catch. The Forth compiler will have to ripup-and-retry with a simple if-else cascade when it detects that the OF parameter is not a constant. You have made sure the first compiler with CASE optimization will have one less bug. -marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-03 03:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f12aca91-03b4-4ae8-a975-7e4028759c06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28219 |
On Monday, February 3, 2014 10:50:46 AM UTC, m.a.m....@tue.nl wrote: > On Monday, February 3, 2014 10:56:14 AM UTC+1, Gerry wrote: > > > On 03/02/2014 09:35, Alex McDonald wrote: > > [..] > > >> Only the first will match. > > > : x case 1 of ." one" endof > > > 1- 1 of ." Second one" endof > > > endcase ; > > > 1 x one ok > > > 2 x Second one ok > > > > Good catch. The Forth compiler will have to > > ripup-and-retry with a simple if-else cascade > > when it detects that the OF parameter is not > > a constant. > > > > You have made sure the first compiler with CASE > > optimization will have one less bug. > > > > -marcel This is what I was alluding to in my post in this thread on the 31st Jan, however it did not get a response. I assumed it was an 'inconvenient' question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-03 14:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lco98e$70k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28219 |
on 03/02/2014 10:50:44, wrote: > On Monday, February 3, 2014 10:56:14 AM UTC+1, Gerry wrote: >> On 03/02/2014 09:35, Alex McDonald wrote: > [..] >>> Only the first will match. >> : x case 1 of ." one" endof >> 1- 1 of ." Second one" endof >> endcase ; >> 1 x one ok >> 2 x Second one ok > > Good catch. The Forth compiler will have to > ripup-and-retry with a simple if-else cascade > when it detects that the OF parameter is not > a constant. > > You have made sure the first compiler with CASE > optimization will have one less bug. > > -marcel > > Ouch, and indeed a good catch. I should have spotted that one, as I have something remarkably similar in my own code for case conversion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-03 19:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1bb86795-5fcb-48bf-9f69-0e4e71c0f2cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28218 |
On Monday, February 3, 2014 2:56:14 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > >> The ANS-Forth CASE can't be compiled into > >> jump-table. For one thing, there is nothing in the ANS-Forth document > >> that says duplicate OF constants aren't allowed. > > Only the first will match. This is true enough when the ANS-Forth CASE is compiled into a series of IF statements. My point was that you can't have duplicates in a jump-table --- hence the ANS-Forth CASE can't be compiled into a jump-table --- hence ANS-Forth has standardized implementation, which they wanted to avoid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-04 12:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <52f0dba6$0$25064$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #28231 |
In article <1bb86795-5fcb-48bf-9f69-0e4e71c0f2cc@googlegroups.com>, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Monday, February 3, 2014 2:56:14 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: >> >> The ANS-Forth CASE can't be compiled into >> >> jump-table. For one thing, there is nothing in the ANS-Forth document >> >> that says duplicate OF constants aren't allowed. > >> > Only the first will match. > >This is true enough when the ANS-Forth CASE is compiled into a series of >IF statements. My point was that you can't have duplicates in a >jump-table --- hence the ANS-Forth CASE can't be compiled into a >jump-table --- hence ANS-Forth has standardized implementation, which >they wanted to avoid. Lets see. Commonly ANS-Forth + is compiled using an ADD instruction. My point was that you can't use an XOR instruction to do that, the ANS-Forth + can't be compiled into an XOR instruction --- hence ANS-Forth has standardized implementation, which they wanted to avoid. 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]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-03 19:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <23cf8fe5-ccc6-4f7f-b387-761184127f4e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28217 |
On Monday, February 3, 2014 2:35:31 AM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote: > > The ANS-Forth CASE can't be compiled into > > jump-table. For one thing, there is nothing in the ANS-Forth document > > that says duplicate OF constants aren't allowed. > Only the first will match. That is only true if CASE is compiled into a series of IF statements. You can't have duplicates with a jump-table. The ANS-Forth definition effectively requires CASE to be implemented as a series of IF statements, and not as a jump-table. One goal of ANS-Forth was to NOT standardize implementation --- CASE is an example of their failure in this. > > Also, the definition > > of OF (6.2.1950) doesn't require the value to be a constant at all, > > but it can be calculated at run -time. Also, the action of the OF > > clause may be using local variables and/o r >R data, which means that > > it can't be a :NONAME function (what Bernd Pays on weirdly calls a > > quotation) and hence can't be given to EXECUTE. > ???? I am assuming here that a jump-table would be populated with XTs of functions (or, in my language, quotations). We don't have an indirect-jump in any Forth that I'm aware of --- I won't have one in my language. You responded to my post, but you seemed to not understand anything that I was saying --- what was the point of that? --- why not just ignore me like everybody else does?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-04 08:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lcq6vj$f1r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28232 |
on 04/02/2014 03:26:03, wrote: > On Monday, February 3, 2014 2:35:31 AM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote: >> > The ANS-Forth CASE can't be compiled into >> > jump-table. For one thing, there is nothing in the ANS-Forth document >> > that says duplicate OF constants aren't allowed. > >> Only the first will match. > > That is only true if CASE is compiled into a series of IF statements. > You can't have duplicates with a jump-table. The ANS-Forth definition > effectively requires CASE to be implemented as a series of IF > statements, and not as a jump-table. > > One goal of ANS-Forth was to NOT standardize implementation --- CASE > is an example of their failure in this. I'd contend that it does not demand a particular implementation, but makes difficult one specific implementation. > >> > Also, the definition >> > of OF (6.2.1950) doesn't require the value to be a constant at all, >> > but it can be calculated at run -time. Also, the action of the OF >> > clause may be using local variables and/o r >R data, which means that >> > it can't be a :NONAME function (what Bernd Pays on weirdly calls a >> > quotation) and hence can't be given to EXECUTE. > >> ???? > > I am assuming here that a jump-table would be populated with XTs of > functions (or, in my language, quotations). We don't have an > indirect-jump in any Forth that I'm aware of --- I won't have one in > my language. I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what locals or data on the rstack has to do with this. > > You responded to my post, but you seemed to not understand anything > that I was saying --- what was the point of that? --- why not just > ignore me like everybody else does? > Infrequently you make a point related to Forth that I don't understand. Don't reply if you don't wish to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-02 19:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ef36269-2414-4696-aaeb-ab6ada7301f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28208 |
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:06:58 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > My guess is that people have not added such a new syntax because it > only improves performance in CASEs with many OFs, i.e., in huge words, > and Forth programmers avoid that. So such a new syntax would not be > used much, and therefore nobody defines it. What about emulating a micro-controller? Most micro-controllers have several hundred opcodes. Are you telling us which applications we can do in Forth, and which applications we should avoid? That is hubris! How is anybody going to develop a micro-controller if they can't emulate it in software first during the development, before actually committing to hardware? Isn't this important? Isn't developing Forth engines an important aspect of Forth? Most likely this isn't important to you, because it isn't part of your class curriculum. This is because homework problems tend to be pretty novice-level --- they aren't a good representation of the real world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-30 15:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jan30.165929@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28156 |
"Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
>mhx@iae.nl wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 26, 2014 7:04:51 PM UTC+1, Stephen Pelc wrote:
>> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:43:23 +1100, "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> [..]
>> anew -when
>> : cond ( char -- 0 char ) 0 SWAP ;
>> : range ( flag1 char low hi -- flag2 char ) 2 PICK >R 1+ WITHIN OR R> ;
>> : equal ( flag1 char val -- flag2 ) OVER >R = OR R> ;
>> : when ( flag char -- char ) POSTPONE TUCK POSTPONE AND POSTPONE OF ; IMMEDIATE COMPILE-ONLY
>>
>> : TEST1 ( char -- )
>> space
>> case
>> cond
>> 00 $1F range
>> $7F equal when ." Control char " endof
>> cond
>> BL '/' range
>> ':' '@' range
>> '[' &` range
>> '{' '~' range when ." Punctuation " endof
>> cond '0' '9' range when ." Digit " endof
>> cond 'A' 'Z' range when ." Upper case letter " endof
>> cond 'a' 'z' range when ." Lower case letter " endof
>> drop ." Not a character "
>> endcase ;
>
>Good. (It wasn't necessary to emulate cond/equal/when etc but no matter.)
>
>The above demonstrates the limitation of ANS CASE. Because it doesn't cater
>for more than one case per block, it must be simulated. It does this by testing
>each case and OR'ing the results - a slow and cumbersome process. There's
>no advantage ordering the cases (for speed) because all must be tested.
No, once a test succeeds, the following OFs are not tested. If you
know that one of the cases dominates (say, lower case letters), you
can increase efficiency by putting that OF first. Alternatively, you
can use that property of the CASE construct to simplify the tests
(which can also help efficiency).
: TEST1 ( char -- )
space
case
cond '0' '9' range when ." Digit " endof
cond 'A' 'Z' range when ." Upper case letter " endof
cond 'a' 'z' range when ." Lower case letter " endof
cond bl '~' range when ." Punctuation " endof
cond 00 $7F range when ." Control char " endof
drop ." Not a character "
endcase ;
And now you can simplify even more into:
: TEST1 ( char -- )
space
case
0' '9' range-of ." Digit " endof
A' 'Z' range-of ." Upper case letter " endof
a' 'z' range-of ." Lower case letter " endof
bl '~' range-of ." Punctuation " endof
00 $7F range-of ." Control char " endof
drop ." Not a character "
endcase ;
I leave the definition of RANGE-OF as an exercise to the reader.
- 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]
Page 5 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web