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 12 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 21 Next page →
| From | mhx@iae.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-08 10:48 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: WITHIN |
| Message-ID | <07af0728-611a-45ee-b021-cd9af128810a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28985 |
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 7:18:18 PM UTC+1, m...@iae.nl wrote: > On Saturday, March 8, 2014 5:37:24 PM UTC+1, Anton Ertl wrote: > > > mhx@iae.nl writes: > [..] Better, but same quantitative results: WITHIN is super. -marcel #10000000 =: size [DEFINED] addr [IF] addr FREE ?ALLOCATE [THEN] size CELLS ALLOCATE ?ALLOCATE =: addr :NONAME ( -- ) size 0 DO RANDOM addr I CELL[] ! LOOP ; EXECUTE : x ( ix -- u ) addr []CELL @ ; : BENCH1 CR ." \ *** fixed data bench ***" CR ." \ DUMMY : " TIMER-RESET size 0 DO LOOP MS? LOCAL o .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN1 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN2 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN3 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN4 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN5 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN6 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN7 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN8 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN9 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP 1 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHINA : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP 1 2 8 WITHINa DROP LOOP .ELAPSED ; : BENCH2 CR ." \ *** randomized bench ***" CR ." \ DUMMY : " TIMER-RESET size 0 DO LOOP MS? LOCAL o .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN1 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN1 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN2 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN2 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN3 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN3 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN4 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN4 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN5 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN5 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN6 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN6 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN7 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN7 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN8 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN8 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHIN9 : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP I x 2 8 WITHIN9 DROP LOOP .ELAPSED CR ." \ WITHINA : " o TIMER-PRESET size 0 DO I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP I x 2 8 WITHINa DROP LOOP .ELAPSED ; \ *** fixed data bench *** \ DUMMY : 0.033 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN : 0.129 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN1 : 0.267 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN2 : 0.306 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN3 : 0.387 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN4 : 0.330 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN5 : 0.687 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN6 : 0.308 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN7 : 0.491 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN8 : 0.294 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN9 : 0.126 seconds elapsed. \ WITHINA : 0.126 seconds elapsed. \ *** randomized bench *** \ DUMMY : 0.019 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN : 0.095 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN1 : 0.245 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN2 : 0.353 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN3 : 0.342 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN4 : 0.323 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN5 : 0.614 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN6 : 0.311 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN7 : 0.427 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN8 : 0.295 seconds elapsed. \ WITHIN9 : 0.092 seconds elapsed. \ WITHINA : 0.095 seconds elapsed. ok
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-08 16:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: WITHIN |
| Message-ID | <2014Mar8.170211@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28967 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>>>> It's still grossly inefficient and hard to understand, especially that
>>>> it works that way. ...
>> : within { n1 n2 n3 -- f }
>> n2 n3 < n2 n1 <= n1 n3 < and and
>> n2 n3 > n2 n1 <= n1 n3 < or and or ;
>
>IMHO it would be easier to understand (though even more inefficient)
>with a bit of factoring:
>
> : endpoints { n a b -- a<=n n<b } a n <= n b < ;
> : outside ( n a b -- flag ) endpoints or ; \ precondition: a > b
> : inside ( n a b -- flag ) endpoints and ; \ precondition: a <= b
> : within ( n a b -- flag ) 2dup <= if inside else outside then ;
Looks overfactored to me. In particular, I don't see ENDPOINTS as
representing a concept.
In any case, I think that the proper WITHIN is superior in every way.
If you have trouble following it, see it as an incentive to learn
about modulo arithmetics. If you want, you explicitly write
: within { n a b -- f }
n a - 2^m-mod b a - 2^m-mod u< ;
- 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 | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-09 01:24 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: WITHIN |
| Message-ID | <7xob1fbu7t.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #28983 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>> : endpoints { n a b -- a<=n n<b } a n <= n b < ;
>> : outside ( n a b -- flag ) endpoints or ; \ precondition: a > b
>> : inside ( n a b -- flag ) endpoints and ; \ precondition: a <= b
>
> Looks overfactored to me. In particular, I don't see ENDPOINTS as
> representing a concept.
Hmm, I thought the idea was to avoid duplicating code. I guess I could
have called it CHECKBOUNDS, since it compares the test point against
the two boundary points A and B.
> In any case, I think that the proper WITHIN is superior in every way.
I'd agree it's a better implementation for 2's complement integers. It
seems to me there are plausible use cases for floats, strings, bignums,
and various other types. There was even a Forth-like cpu that used
ternary instead of binary for integers:
http://brokestream.com/daf.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setun
> If you have trouble following it, see it as an incentive to learn
> about modulo arithmetics.
In my case it made sense after it became clear (from Andrew's post) what
the function was actually supposed to do. It was more obscure in the
ANS glossary, in part because of the stack juggling in the reference
implementation, and in part because the verbosity of the documentation
made it sound more complicated than it was. The ANS glossary might not
be a place for it, but in a tutorial I think it would be clearer
exposition to present the generic version first, then the optimized
version.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-09 18:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: WITHIN |
| Message-ID | <2014Mar9.191607@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28992 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>>> : endpoints { n a b -- a<=n n<b } a n <= n b < ;
>>> : outside ( n a b -- flag ) endpoints or ; \ precondition: a > b
>>> : inside ( n a b -- flag ) endpoints and ; \ precondition: a <= b
>>
>> Looks overfactored to me. In particular, I don't see ENDPOINTS as
>> representing a concept.
>
>Hmm, I thought the idea was to avoid duplicating code.
Yes, but that alone is not a good guideline for factoring.
Avoiding duplication is the idea behind this definition:
: within8 { n a b -- f }
\ ANSI C-ish: does not use overflow, but uses arithmetic on flags.
a b > a n <= n b < + + -2 = ;
But the + + -2 = trick makes it hard to understand. You have to know
where it is coming from to understand it. Or maybe put the truth
table in the comments or something.
- 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 | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-06 21:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xpplyblx4.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #28867 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >> Just that I still haven't yet seen a use case for WITHIN being >> written the way it is. > How else would you write WITHIN ? It has to work eveywhere on the > number circle. The concrete examples I looked at from the 4th distro didn't have to work everywhere on the number circle. The robotics example you gave sounded like it could be sped up slightly (in the case of being called a constant offset in a control loop) by minor refactoring (lifting the offset calculation to outside the loop). > Any other way that you might write it breaks at some point unless you > use that algorithm. You could implement directly from the spec, separating the a<=b case from the a>b case, what Anton called Pascal-style code. It would be slower (for no advantage, in the 2's complement case) but would still give the right answers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-07 09:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <53198fcd$0$25260$e4fe514c@dreader34.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #28941 |
In article <7xpplyblx4.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>> Just that I still haven't yet seen a use case for WITHIN being >>> written the way it is. >> How else would you write WITHIN ? It has to work eveywhere on the >> number circle. > >The concrete examples I looked at from the 4th distro didn't have to >work everywhere on the number circle. The robotics example you gave >sounded like it could be sped up slightly (in the case of being called a >constant offset in a control loop) by minor refactoring (lifting the >offset calculation to outside the loop). > >> Any other way that you might write it breaks at some point unless you >> use that algorithm. > >You could implement directly from the spec, separating the a<=b case >from the a>b case, what Anton called Pascal-style code. It would be >slower (for no advantage, in the 2's complement case) but would still >give the right answers. No that won't work. a<b a=b and a>b all can result in a b c being true and in it being false. Think about this: a b c WITHIN a b c ROT WITHIN a b c ROT ROT WITHIN give the same result, always. 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 | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-07 12:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Mar7.132818@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28946 |
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>In article <7xpplyblx4.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
>Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>You could implement directly from the spec, separating the a<=b case
>>from the a>b case, what Anton called Pascal-style code. It would be
>>slower (for no advantage, in the 2's complement case) but would still
>>give the right answers.
>
>No that won't work. a<b a=b and a>b all can result in
> a b c being true and in it being false.
I don't understand that.
>Think about this:
>a b c WITHIN
>a b c ROT WITHIN
>a b c ROT ROT WITHIN
>
>give the same result, always.
Let's see:
0 constant a
1 constant b
1 constant c
a b c WITHIN
a b c ROT WITHIN
a b c ROT ROT WITHIN
. . .
outputs
0 -1 0
- 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 | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-07 19:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <531a1fca$0$24943$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #28952 |
In article <2014Mar7.132818@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: >>In article <7xpplyblx4.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, >>Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>You could implement directly from the spec, separating the a<=b case >>>from the a>b case, what Anton called Pascal-style code. It would be >>>slower (for no advantage, in the 2's complement case) but would still >>>give the right answers. >> >>No that won't work. a<b a=b and a>b all can result in >> a b c being true and in it being false. > >I don't understand that. > >>Think about this: >>a b c WITHIN >>a b c ROT WITHIN >>a b c ROT ROT WITHIN >> >>give the same result, always. > >Let's see: > >0 constant a >1 constant b >1 constant c >a b c WITHIN >a b c ROT WITHIN >a b c ROT ROT WITHIN >. . . > >outputs > >0 -1 0 You killed the pedagogical aspect of my post. I should have said, "corner cases excepted" instead of always. 18446744073709551615 out of 18446744073709551616 cases. > >- anton -- 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 | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-06 18:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Mar6.192534@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28862 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>Just that I still haven't yet seen a use case for WITHIN being written
>the way it is.
Looking at the code in Gforth, I see WITHIN used for chars, for
negative numbers (error codes), for addresses, for testing exclusion
instead of inclusion, stuff where it's unclear, because the parameters
are coming from elsewhere. Looks like plenty of use cases for WITHIN
written the way it is.
>1 is the definition of BETWEEN as
> : BETWEEN 1+ WITHIN ;
> in range.4th -- which I think is slightly wrong per
> http://www.netbay.com.au/~dxforth/between.html (posted by Rod
> Pemberton). Another example of wraparound arithmetic causing
> potential bugs.
That definition is just as wrong for trapping on overflow, so this has
nothing to do with "wraparound arithmetic causing potential bugs."
The definition is just wrong.
Let's try a different one:
: between 1+ swap within 0= ;
As far as I can see, this works correctly with wraparound arithmetic,
but not with trapping on overflow.
- 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 | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-06 23:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7x4n3a30ol.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #28937 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: > Looking at the code in Gforth,... Looks like plenty of use cases for > WITHIN written the way it is. Fair enough. Do many really depend on 2's complement? >> : BETWEEN 1+ WITHIN ; > That definition is just as wrong for trapping on overflow If you think of ints as going right up to the boundary of MAXINT and then failing, then yes, it can trap if the TOS arg is exactly MAXINT. If you think of ints as "big enough to hold any number your program is going to use, including as an intermediate result" (i.e. same semantics as a bignum, except you're asserting that your numbers will all fit in a word), then you shouldn't reach MAXINT. > : between 1+ swap within 0= ; > As far as I can see, this works correctly with wraparound arithmetic, > but not with trapping on overflow. Same as above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-07 10:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Mar7.111558@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28944 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>> Looking at the code in Gforth,... Looks like plenty of use cases for
>> WITHIN written the way it is.
>
>Fair enough. Do many really depend on 2's complement?
What dependence do you have in mind?
>>> : BETWEEN 1+ WITHIN ;
>> That definition is just as wrong for trapping on overflow
>
>If you think of ints as going right up to the boundary of MAXINT and
>then failing, then yes, it can trap if the TOS arg is exactly MAXINT.
>If you think of ints as "big enough to hold any number your program is
>going to use, including as an intermediate result" (i.e. same semantics
>as a bignum, except you're asserting that your numbers will all fit in a
>word), then you shouldn't reach MAXINT.
So, you define this bug away for the trap-on-overflow case by assuming
that it will never happen, yet you brought this issue up for the
wraparound case and claimed "Another example of wraparound arithmetic
causing potential bugs." A nice example of double standards.
But yes, that's a frequent way to limited integers (and also of
floats) in real-world programs, and if you have modulo semantics, you
can even leave the caveat about intermediate results away for many
operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication).
- 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 | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-07 08:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xr46ehskk.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #28948 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: > So, you define this bug away for the trap-on-overflow case by assuming > that it will never happen, yet you brought this issue up for the > wraparound case and claimed "Another example of wraparound arithmetic > causing potential bugs." A nice example of double standards. Well ok, both overflows are bugs, but wraparound is typically a much worse bug, as it leads to potentially getting silently wrong answers instead of a noisy crash that one can diagnose and fix. As Chris Smith put it: More experienced programmers realize that correct code is great, code that crashes could use improvement, but incorrect code that doesn't crash is a horrible nightmare.[1] I realize that in the niche of realtime control software, the above might not really apply, but that itself is a rather special case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-07 09:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xzjl1syfz.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #28960 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes: > As Chris Smith put it: > ... incorrect code that doesn't crash is a horrible nightmare.[1] Sorry, forgot the link: http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/an-old-article-i-wrote/ An excellent article titled "What To Know Before Debating Type Systems".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 20:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <349711a3-3255-448a-a693-c7a117c53702@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28859 |
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:56:09 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: > I don't know if anyone has ever defined WITHIN as a > circular relational on, say, floating-point numbers; it might make > more sense to define it simply as lo < x <= hi. Comparisons of floating-point numbers are a can of worms that you don't want to open! You are just making this stuff up; you haven't implemented it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-27 08:18 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <lpGdneaE-v_FHJLOnZ2dnUVZ_jgAAAAA@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28806 |
On 2/27/14 6:27 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: > albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: >> Just use a 64 bit system and no negative addresses, and you're fine. > > Aha, this explains better than anything else that I looked at what > WITHIN is for. I remember Starting Forth didn't say anything about it. > I didn't look in Thinking Forth. > It's certainly in Forth Application Techniques. The thing to remember is that WITHIN is inclusive a the low end, and exclusive at the top. This is easiest to remember if you keep in mind that DO ... LOOPs are the same ( 10 0 DO I . LOOP will give you 0-9). 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]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-07 13:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Mar7.142157@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28805 |
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>WITHIN suffers the same problem as DO LOOP.
Not in my experience. I think that's because it's relatively easy to
replace WITHIN with something else if WITHIN does not fit, whereas it
is more cumbersome to work around such issues with ?DO...LOOP.
I think that Paul Rubin is right, and WITHIN is used in a way that the
programmer knows whether he is testing for inclusion or exclusion; it
does not happen that n2|u2 and n3|u3 vary in a way that toggles the
included and excluded ranges around. The boundaries are often fixed,
and if they are not, it is known that one boundary is always on the same
side of the other wrt. inclusion.
With ?DO, that is also often the case (leading to a number of people
who don't see a problem with ?DO, and some not even with DO), but
there are cases where at least one bound is sufficiently unknown that
this cannot be guaranteed.
>This is the hell caused by the original sin of having the same
>+ for signed and unsigned ints.
For me that's the wonder of the 2s-complement representation.
- 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 | 2014-03-07 08:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Oe2dnVrW55S_SoTOnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28957 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: > >>This is the hell caused by the original sin of having the same >>+ for signed and unsigned ints. > > For me that's the wonder of the 2s-complement representation. I quite agree. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-27 10:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <JIKdnVB-c88k9JLOnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28802 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>> That's not exactly it because WITHIN is explicitly circular, so it
>> requires unsigned comparisons.
>
> Hmm, ok, so does this work as a generic reference implementation?
>
> template <typename T>
> bool within(T n, T starting, T ending) {
> if (starting <= ending)
> return (starting <= n && n < ending);
> return (starting <= n || n < ending);
> }
I think so, but what is this, Programming Made Difficult? :-)
> I can see that optimizations might be possible for fixed-width int
> types. Still, for describing the function's intended meaning, I think
> it's clearest to say what should happen if int sizes are unlimited,
> which the above tries to do.
I'm not sure that it makes any sense, given that unlimited sizes don't
wrap around. (Or do they? I'm sure you could invent some kind of
nonstandard number theory in which they wrapped around at infinity.)
> I notice that http://soton.mpeforth.com/flag/anstests/index.html
> (based on Hayes tests) doesn't have any tests for WITHIN.
I expect there are still many missing tests.
Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-01 11:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7x38j1iulj.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #28809 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >> it's clearest to say what should happen if int sizes are unlimited, > I'm not sure that it makes any sense, given that unlimited sizes don't > wrap around. (Or do they? I'm sure you could invent some kind of > nonstandard number theory in which they wrapped around at infinity.) See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_projective_line
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-07 13:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Mar7.141810@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28802 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>> That's not exactly it because WITHIN is explicitly circular, so it
>> requires unsigned comparisons.
>
>Hmm, ok, so does this work as a generic reference implementation?
>
> template <typename T>
> bool within(T n, T starting, T ending) {
> if (starting <= ending)
> return (starting <= n && n < ending);
> return (starting <= n || n < ending);
> }
>
>I can see that optimizations might be possible for fixed-width int
>types. Still, for describing the function's intended meaning, I think
>it's clearest to say what should happen if int sizes are unlimited,
>which the above tries to do.
I don't think so, because WITHIN was not intended for unlimited
integers. But such a definition may help those who hate modulo
arithmetics.
>I notice that http://soton.mpeforth.com/flag/anstests/index.html
>(based on Hayes tests) doesn't have any tests for WITHIN.
Here are my tests:
: within-test { a b c -- }
\ a, b, c are distinct, and b is between a and c on the number circle
assert( a b c within 0= )
assert( a c b within )
assert( b a c within )
assert( b c a within 0= )
assert( c a b within 0= )
assert( c b a within )
assert( a a b within )
assert( a b a within 0= )
assert( b a a within 0= )
assert( a a a within 0= ) ;
1 2 3 within-test
0 1 2 within-test
-1 0 1 within-test
-2 -1 0 within-test
-3 -2 -1 within-test
also environment
max-n 1+ dup 1+ dup 1+ within-test
max-n dup 1+ dup 1+ within-test
max-n 1- dup 1+ dup 1+ within-test
max-n 2 - dup 1+ dup 1+ within-test
max-n 1+ 0 over 1- within-test
max-n 1+ -1 over 1- within-test
previous
- 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 12 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web