Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #31786 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-06-24 10:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-06-28 13:52 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 116 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
There is no standard Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-24 10:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 12:47 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 12:48 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-24 10:05 -1000
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 13:19 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-24 10:29 -1000
Re: There is no standard mhx@iae.nl - 2014-06-24 13:33 -0700
Re: There is no standard AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-06-24 22:47 +0200
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 15:02 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-24 12:50 -1000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 05:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-06-25 13:39 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 08:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-06-25 17:04 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 14:45 -0700
Re: There is no standard hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-25 15:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-26 11:47 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 12:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 13:03 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:08 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-26 18:47 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:03 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:25 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 20:21 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 04:53 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 06:56 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:30 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:45 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:01 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:14 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:20 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:43 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 13:12 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 14:10 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-28 14:24 -0400
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-27 14:08 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-26 17:45 -1000
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-26 15:05 -1000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 05:03 -0700
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-26 09:29 -0500
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 12:46 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:10 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:15 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 22:29 -0400
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-27 03:28 -0500
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-27 10:30 -0500
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:52 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:13 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:29 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 12:32 -0700
Re: There is no standard Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-27 12:42 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-28 15:32 -0400
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-27 13:01 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 13:29 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 16:14 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 02:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-28 12:22 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 07:34 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-28 10:26 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-28 07:18 -1000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 12:35 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-28 11:31 -1000
Re: There is no standard Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 03:20 +0300
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-28 21:11 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-29 10:16 +0000
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-29 11:00 +0000
Re: There is no standard mhx@iae.nl - 2014-06-29 05:12 -0700
Re: There is no standard Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 15:46 +0300
Re: There is no standard stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-06-29 14:48 +0000
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 18:43 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 05:58 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-29 06:35 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 11:03 -0400
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-28 12:13 -0500
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 20:51 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 06:33 -0700
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-27 03:25 -0500
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-28 14:31 -0400
Re: There is no standard Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-06-29 15:01 +0200
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-29 14:35 -0500
Re: There is no standard Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-06-30 03:20 +0200
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-28 21:30 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-29 10:27 +0000
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 08:18 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-25 07:47 -1000
Re: There is no standard hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-25 14:48 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 15:25 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 16:51 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 03:54 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-26 08:06 -1000
Re: There is no standard hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-26 14:08 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:46 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:54 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:55 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-27 00:00 -0400
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 07:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 07:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 07:13 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-30 06:38 -0400
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 12:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:18 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:23 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 22:31 -0400
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 16:01 -0400
Re: There is no standard Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2014-06-25 05:04 -0500
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 15:44 -0400
Re: There is no standard googlegroups@mailfilter.33mail.com - 2014-06-25 13:52 -0700
Re: There is no standard barrym95838@yahoo.com - 2014-06-26 14:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard m II <C@in.the.hat> - 2014-06-26 19:37 -0600
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 22:35 -0400
Re: There is no standard Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-25 09:47 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 10:10 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-25 18:16 -0400
Re: There is no standard BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2014-06-28 13:52 -0700
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 09:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m4idne6y8dqwszHOnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #31841 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: > ?????, 25 ???? 2014??., 21:04:15 UTC+4 ???????????? Anton Ertl ???????: > >> Well, 1.23 does the same on all standard Forth systems. > > And this is a problem, because new users does not want to have this > kind of result. That's something of a philosophical issues with Forth, as well as a practical one. How much do you want to mutate the language to keep these "new users" happy? After all, Forth is different by design: how much have you got to change the language to achieve that? How much should lisp have changed to accommodate users who can't cope with parantheses? Haskell to accommodate users who can't cope with currying? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 12:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f8e95624-195a-4856-9f10-6a0847218cef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31875 |
> That's something of a philosophical issues with Forth, as well as a > practical one. How much do you want to mutate the language to keep > these "new users" happy? After all, Forth is different by design: how > much have you got to change the language to achieve that? How much > should lisp have changed to accommodate users who can't cope with > parantheses? Haskell to accommodate users who can't cope with > currying? I don't want to mutate Forth at all. Stack calculations and postfix notation are not so terrific and can be explained. But I cannot explain (and cannot found) the reasons to use 1.23E0, stacked vocabularies, Pascal-style strings instead of ASCIIZ, two output numbers for file IO and many other things from '94. Peoples often wants to have this things similar to others languages and well understand Forth key features. The question is not to add a new features or libraries in the attempts to be accepted by any programmer. Minimize the standard requirements, align it to current OS API and more Forth systems became standard compatible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 16:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lohun0$h5h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #31884 |
On 6/26/2014 3:46 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >> That's something of a philosophical issues with Forth, as well as a >> practical one. How much do you want to mutate the language to keep >> these "new users" happy? After all, Forth is different by design: how >> much have you got to change the language to achieve that? How much >> should lisp have changed to accommodate users who can't cope with >> parantheses? Haskell to accommodate users who can't cope with >> currying? > > I don't want to mutate Forth at all. Stack calculations and postfix notation are not so terrific and can be explained. But I cannot explain (and cannot found) the reasons to use 1.23E0, stacked vocabularies, Pascal-style strings instead of ASCIIZ, two output numbers for file IO and many other things from '94. Peoples often wants to have this things similar to others languages and well understand Forth key features. The question is not to add a new features or libraries in the attempts to be accepted by any programmer. Minimize the standard requirements, align it to current OS API and more Forth systems became standard compatible. There is nothing in the standard that requires you to implement counted strings. I don't know what you mean by "two output numbers for file IO". When you talk about aligning Forth to the current OS API you show that you don't fully understand the extent Forth is used in the embedded world where there is *no* OS many times. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 15:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee310658-58db-456f-9a57-b6a5b3ed0144@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31886 |
> There is nothing in the standard that requires you to implement counted > strings. I don't know what you mean by "two output numbers for file IO". > When you talk about aligning Forth to the current OS API you show that > you don't fully understand the extent Forth is used in the embedded > world where there is *no* OS many times. Explain this, please: http://pfe.sourceforge.net/pfe-wordsets/file.html ===================================================================== CREATE-FILE( name-ptr name-len open-mode# -- name-file* name-errno# ) ===================================================================== And compare with this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa363858(v=vs.85).aspx ===================================================================== HANDLE WINAPI CreateFile( _In_ LPCTSTR lpFileName, _In_ DWORD dwDesiredAccess, _In_ DWORD dwShareMode, _In_opt_ LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES lpSecurityAttributes, _In_ DWORD dwCreationDisposition, _In_ DWORD dwFlagsAndAttributes, _In_opt_ HANDLE hTemplateFile ); =====================================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 22:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <loiku6$snk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #31899 |
On 6/26/2014 6:15 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >> There is nothing in the standard that requires you to implement counted >> strings. I don't know what you mean by "two output numbers for file IO". >> When you talk about aligning Forth to the current OS API you show that >> you don't fully understand the extent Forth is used in the embedded >> world where there is *no* OS many times. > > Explain this, please: > > http://pfe.sourceforge.net/pfe-wordsets/file.html > ===================================================================== > CREATE-FILE( name-ptr name-len open-mode# -- name-file* name-errno# ) > ===================================================================== > > And compare with this: > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa363858(v=vs.85).aspx > > ===================================================================== > HANDLE WINAPI CreateFile( > _In_ LPCTSTR lpFileName, > _In_ DWORD dwDesiredAccess, > _In_ DWORD dwShareMode, > _In_opt_ LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES lpSecurityAttributes, > _In_ DWORD dwCreationDisposition, > _In_ DWORD dwFlagsAndAttributes, > _In_opt_ HANDLE hTemplateFile > ); > ===================================================================== What is it you want explained? Are you aware that Forth is not Windows? -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 03:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-N6dnWAkBLOntjDOnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #31899 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is nothing in the standard that requires you to implement counted
>> strings. I don't know what you mean by "two output numbers for file IO".
>> When you talk about aligning Forth to the current OS API you show that
>> you don't fully understand the extent Forth is used in the embedded
>> world where there is *no* OS many times.
>
> Explain this, please:
>
> http://pfe.sourceforge.net/pfe-wordsets/file.html
> =====================================================================
> CREATE-FILE( name-ptr name-len open-mode# -- name-file* name-errno# )
> =====================================================================
>
> And compare with this:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa363858(v=vs.85).aspx
>
> =====================================================================
> HANDLE WINAPI CreateFile(
> _In_ LPCTSTR lpFileName,
> _In_ DWORD dwDesiredAccess,
> _In_ DWORD dwShareMode,
> _In_opt_ LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES lpSecurityAttributes,
> _In_ DWORD dwCreationDisposition,
> _In_ DWORD dwFlagsAndAttributes,
> _In_opt_ HANDLE hTemplateFile
> );
> =====================================================================
Compare with this:
int open(const char *pathname, int flags, mode_t mode);
Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 08:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be836c5f-c72c-45d4-8973-ce995f7501a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31928 |
> Compare with this: > int open(const char *pathname, int flags, mode_t mode); " filename.ext" OPEN \ this leaves HANDLE on the top of stack If Windows open function requires ASCIIZ, why I must use an additional wrappers? If Windows open function returns one parameter, why I must convert it to two parameters? At least, programmers familiar with Windows API, have their own code patterns in mind and will be surprised with -- HANDLE #errno output. This is a great illustration to a problem I want to point to. Just a minor tactical question can produce a great flame with zero compromise from the standard defenders ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 10:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <wuGdnV9jfcdjEDDOnZ2dnUVZ8jOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #31945 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: >> Compare with this: >> int open(const char *pathname, int flags, mode_t mode); > > " filename.ext" OPEN \ this leaves HANDLE on the top of stack > > If Windows open function requires ASCIIZ, why I must use an > additional wrappers? If Windows open function returns one parameter, > why I must convert it to two parameters? At least, programmers > familiar with Windows API, have their own code patterns in mind and > will be surprised with -- HANDLE #errno output. You don't. Obviously, if you want a Windows-specific function, you'll write one. > This is a great illustration to a problem I want to point to. Just a > minor tactical question can produce a great flame with zero > compromise from the standard defenders ;) What problem? There is a standard portable OPEN, and WINDOWS-OPEN or whatever. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 08:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b086beb-104c-4ef8-9c92-041704b4983f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31945 |
> If Windows open function requires ASCIIZ, why I must use an additional wrappers? If Windows open function returns one parameter, why I must convert it to two parameters? Because Forth. We can't change it now. Do it your way. No one cares. > This is a great illustration to a problem I want to point to. Just a minor tactical question can produce a great flame with zero compromise from the standard defenders ;) Why don't you go question C# programmers as to why they have to do extra work to call unmanaged code?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 11:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b590caee-d463-4b71-aa57-90546ca8b836@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31952 |
пятница, 27 июня 2014 г., 19:52:30 UTC+4 пользователь Roger Levy написал: > > If Windows open function requires ASCIIZ, why I must use an additional wrappers? If Windows open function returns one parameter, why I must convert it to two parameters? > Because Forth. We can't change it now. Do it your way. No one cares. Of course, we can change the names of file IO functions, literal formats an so on. There are more important standards in IT area, defined by industry leaders. If I use it, this is not 'my way', it is just a style of programming when I can say 'no problem with file IO, floating point, graphics, network etc. in my Forth. Just write functions you already know in postfix notation'. I prefer to provide a POSIX and OpenGL compatibility rather than... what is the exactly name of standard? :) > Why don't you go question C# programmers as to why they have to do extra work to call unmanaged code? Because here is a Forth newsgroup, not C# :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 11:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da1caa95-e373-4c25-9312-e7b99ee411c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31962 |
> Of course, we can change the names of file IO functions, literal formats an so on. There are more important standards in IT area, defined by industry leaders. If I use it, this is not 'my way', it is just a style of programming when I can say 'no problem with file IO, floating point, graphics, network etc. in my Forth. Just write functions you already know in postfix notation'. I prefer to provide a POSIX and OpenGL compatibility rather than... what is the exactly name of standard? :) I don't care. > > Why don't you go question C# programmers as to why they have to do extra work to call unmanaged code? > > Because here is a Forth newsgroup, not C# :) You're like that kid in elementary school who everyone hates because he can't stop hanging around other kids who aren't his friends and harassing them because he doesn't know how to act like a human being. You're just a troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35d7cefc-346c-4e3e-b11f-67605cac5ed5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31965 |
> > > Why don't you go question C# programmers as to why they have to do extra work to call unmanaged code? > > > Because here is a Forth newsgroup, not C# :) > > You're like that kid in elementary school who everyone hates because he can't stop hanging around other kids who aren't his friends and harassing them because he doesn't know how to act like a human being. You're just a troll. If you have no to ask, don't ask a provocative questions. Your question about C# is a simple provocation because your probably know what it is impossible to deal with many languages in a same time. So how I must interpret it? 'Go to the C# programmers and ask them' sounds like 'Go away, do something impossible and don't come back until you solve this problem'. I know several Forth teams who ignoring the changes during they use old-style Forth. They are don't like sharp questions, and leaving market completely. If you prefer staying for a while with a 'good kids' and without sharp questions too, let it be so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 12:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d65aa4f-e975-4487-ab37-08cf6cf2e5c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31968 |
Eble estas lingvo barilo? Maybe is language barrier?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-28 15:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xh6i85b76zenlw@localhost> |
| In reply to | #31965 |
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 14:29:34 -0400, Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> wrote: > You're like that kid in elementary school who everyone hates because he > can't stop hanging around other kids who aren't his friends and > harassing them because he doesn't know how to act like a human being. Just who defines "how to act like a human being"? That kid was human. You as a kid were human too. (And, you probably still are ...) That seems to be the basis of your hatred, not the harassing or unwanted hanging around. That behavior could've been a byproduct of your treatment of him. I've had friend who had friends, some of whom I learned later didn't want me around, without any apparently justifiable reasons. So, I think lawyers would call this statement of yours arbitrary and capricious. We're hearing just one side of the situation which may not represent reality. So, how did you and your friends define "[acting] like a human being"? Was it intentionally exclusionary of this one kid? I.e., it's far more likely you discriminated against him, for looks etc., instead of him being a bully, although that happens too. It would also seem that you never also found out why this kid was doing this. Perhaps, most of the other kids wanted you and/or a friend of yours gone and were using him to do it ... Rod Pemberton P.S. If you can't tell, you're way off-topic of Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1d06ddc-0af9-415c-8a2d-89f0188cb8e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31945 |
On Friday, June 27, 2014 11:22:51 AM UTC-4, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > " filename.ext" OPEN \ this leaves HANDLE on the top of stack Then use that. OPEN CLOSE READ and the like are not reserved by Forth94, so do that. Call it an implementation dependency on OPEN. Done. If you are programming, the two requirements are don't use the same names that Forth94 uses to mean different things, and to say what your program requires. Anybody who wants to be open to social programming will be happy to do both, since it makes it easier for someone else to use their work. Anybody who has no interest in being open to social programming is not inconvenienced in the slightest by the existence of the standard, since they can just ignore it. > If Windows open function requires ASCIIZ, why I must use an additional wrappers? The standard doesn't do anything to require a wrapper. Build your string words from the ground up around ASCIIZ strings, as obsolete as they of course are, because of the desire to be compatible with the Windows open function. If you are programming in Forth, you ought to have a ( ca u ) stack interface for those words, since ( ca u ) is a convenient general stack interface which works with both self-delimited strings in storage and with substrings. But if you want to impose upon yourself the entirely unecessary work of having one complete ASCIIZ string word set and another substring word set, you are free to do that to. The whole ASCIIZ argument is fabricating a consequence of Forth94 that doesn't exist. That was a Forth79 and Forth83 problem that Forth94 provides the tools to avoid. > If Windows open function returns one parameter, why I must convert it to two parameters? But that is a fiction. You don't have to. If you return a file handle and execute a function on that file handle to get the i/o error return code, you just have to refrain from calling the word FILE-OPEN > At least, programmers familiar with Windows API, have their own code patterns in mind and will be surprised with -- HANDLE #errno output. Yes, and programmers familiar with other OS API's will have their own code patterns in mind as well, and they will be different to Windows. Which is how OPEN CLOSE READ etc. ended up unreserved and the reserved words are longer. OPEN CLOSE READ and etc. can work anyway you want them to. The Windows way, the Linux way, the Android way, the iOS way ... whatever OS you have code specialized to. It's an obvious limitation of old C-legacy systems that they want to give a file handle and you either use it to retrieve the I/O status or look in a specialized place (which is more common in single tasking OS's) to find the I/O status of the last I/O operations. The Forth94 approach is an effective solution to the fact that different OS's do it differently. But if you are doing the program for people too trapped in the old Microsoft monopoly mindset to imagine a world outside of the Windows API, just use OPEN CLOSE READ etc. tuned to the Windows API. > This is a great illustration to a problem I want to point to. Just a minor tactical question can produce a great flame with zero compromise from the standard defenders ;) You: "Don't force me to do THIS! Let me do THAT! Explainers of Forth94: "Nothing in the standard forces you to do THIS. You are perfectly free to do THAT instead." You: "Why won't you change the standard to comply with my demand! You refuse to compromise!" The compromise has already been made ~ leaving OPEN CLOSE READ etc. unreserved, and reserving the more cumbersome OPEN-FILE etc. instead means that what you imagine that Forth94 "makes" you do with respect to file operations are just invented fictions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 13:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a51c993-6da4-4f0b-bb04-e5e9b5c5b9d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31970 |
> You: "Why won't you change the standard to comply with my demand! You refuse to compromise!" Of course, I don't want to change anything in the ANS. I simple not interested, and can write what I want without forcing anyone to use my products. Although I can observe a problem which is very known for me from me previous 'offline' Forth experience and from RuFIG. There are nothing news :) Some peoples demands a standard to have a strong foundation while another wants a flexibility and a freedom to create their own architectures. 'Standard forthers' dreaming on the tons of libraries and don't like to allow others escape from the standard. 'Lone wolfs' dreaming to be first forthers in the world. Both positions are wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 16:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lokjc0$m3t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #31928 |
On 6/27/2014 4:28 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: >>> There is nothing in the standard that requires you to implement counted >>> strings. I don't know what you mean by "two output numbers for file IO". >>> When you talk about aligning Forth to the current OS API you show that >>> you don't fully understand the extent Forth is used in the embedded >>> world where there is *no* OS many times. >> >> Explain this, please: >> >> http://pfe.sourceforge.net/pfe-wordsets/file.html >> ===================================================================== >> CREATE-FILE( name-ptr name-len open-mode# -- name-file* name-errno# ) >> ===================================================================== >> >> And compare with this: >> >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa363858(v=vs.85).aspx >> >> ===================================================================== >> HANDLE WINAPI CreateFile( >> _In_ LPCTSTR lpFileName, >> _In_ DWORD dwDesiredAccess, >> _In_ DWORD dwShareMode, >> _In_opt_ LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES lpSecurityAttributes, >> _In_ DWORD dwCreationDisposition, >> _In_ DWORD dwFlagsAndAttributes, >> _In_opt_ HANDLE hTemplateFile >> ); >> ===================================================================== > > Compare with this: > > int open(const char *pathname, int flags, mode_t mode); Can you just tell me what your point is? -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-28 02:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa310258-f087-4c23-9a43-22fa59177ae2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31985 |
пятница, 27 июня 2014 г., 23:14:55 UTC+3 пользователь rickman написал: > On 6/27/2014 4:28 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> There is nothing in the standard that requires you to implement counted > > >>> strings. I don't know what you mean by "two output numbers for file IO". > > >>> When you talk about aligning Forth to the current OS API you show that > > >>> you don't fully understand the extent Forth is used in the embedded > > >>> world where there is *no* OS many times. > > >> > > >> Explain this, please: > > >> > > >> http://pfe.sourceforge.net/pfe-wordsets/file.html > > >> ===================================================================== > > >> CREATE-FILE( name-ptr name-len open-mode# -- name-file* name-errno# ) > > >> ===================================================================== > > >> > > >> And compare with this: > > >> > > >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa363858(v=vs.85).aspx > > >> > > >> ===================================================================== > > >> HANDLE WINAPI CreateFile( > > >> _In_ LPCTSTR lpFileName, > > >> _In_ DWORD dwDesiredAccess, > > >> _In_ DWORD dwShareMode, > > >> _In_opt_ LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES lpSecurityAttributes, > > >> _In_ DWORD dwCreationDisposition, > > >> _In_ DWORD dwFlagsAndAttributes, > > >> _In_opt_ HANDLE hTemplateFile > > >> ); > > >> ===================================================================== > > > > > > Compare with this: > > > > > > int open(const char *pathname, int flags, mode_t mode); > > > > Can you just tell me what your point is? > > > > -- > > > > Rick CreateFile accepts pointer to ASCIIZ and returns one parameter, with special code for HANDLE if failed. CREATE-FILE accepts c-addr u and returns handle and error code. If CREATE-FILE is a wrapper for CreateFile, you need to perform an additional actions, and, more important, provide an additional documentation and tutorials instead of referring to Win API. So you must decide, do you want to provide a set of words with similar interface as host OS API functions, or create an additional abstraction layer. Both of this solutions has advantages and disadvantages, but, in any case, overall architecture must not be fragmentary! 'ASCIIZ sucks' is not an argument at all. So what is the reasons to ignore more common standards and keeping compatibility with old Forth? If you really can list that reasons, it may be useful for the better understanding the overall situation. If not, it may be a detailed issue to the current standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-28 12:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <53aeb39a$0$15814$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #31994 |
In article <fa310258-f087-4c23-9a43-22fa59177ae2@googlegroups.com>, Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: >CreateFile accepts pointer to ASCIIZ and returns one parameter, with >special code for HANDLE if failed. CREATE-FILE accepts c-addr u and >returns handle and error code. If CREATE-FILE is a wrapper for >CreateFile, you need to perform an additional actions, and, more >important, provide an additional documentation and tutorials instead of >referring to Win API. So you must decide, do you want to provide a set >of words with similar interface as host OS API functions, or create an >additional abstraction layer. Both of this solutions has advantages and >disadvantages, but, in any case, overall architecture must not be >fragmentary! 'ASCIIZ sucks' is not an argument at all. So what is the >reasons to ignore more common standards and keeping compatibility with >old Forth? If you really can list that reasons, it may be useful for the >better understanding the overall situation. If not, it may be a detailed >issue to the current standard. I've made a Forth for Windows and of course it has a CREATE-FILE, and it complies with the standard. So you can write programs with it. Of course it is a wrapper, and it doesn't do what people used to programming against the API in C expect. Those people are profound windows experts! No c programmer in his right mind uses CreateFile(), but he uses the open() of fopen() calls from the c standard library. So standard c-programs work. ISO Forth programs work. Who needs CreateFile? With my CREATE-FILE Forth programmers who program against the ISO 94 standard are happy, because standard Forth-programs work. It has been tested against that standard, which is some guarantee that weird CreateFile features didn't seep through. If one would report a deviation from ISO 94, then it becomes a task for the implementor of a Forth to study (experiment with) the Windows API and fix it, so more of the standard programs work. Where are the poor bastards who are forced to use the CreateFile of windows directly? They have to study the differences between XP Vista Embedded 8 and 8 for this API. Oh no! The only specs I can find is a more than ten year old document from the assembler programmer Randall from the time he aspired to rewrite the Petzold bible for assembler. 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 | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-28 07:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cf3b6ba5-d1c2-4f6f-89b4-20e2e8cbf9e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31998 |
> > Where are the poor bastards who are forced to use the CreateFile of > windows directly? They have to study the differences between XP Vista > Embedded 8 and 8 for this API. Oh no! The only specs I can find is a > more than ten year old document from the assembler programmer Randall > from the time he aspired to rewrite the Petzold bible for assembler. Oh, forget that puny CreateFile :) My goal was to demonstrate parameter types used for at least one version of OS and show that c-addr u is not only usable way to represent strings. And we are already found no prohibitions for using OPEN as alternative for OPEN-FILE. The lesser question still remains: why any attempts to use non-standard Forth meets hard and non-compromise position without asking why ever this needs? This is a rhetorical question already :) Ok then, I'm trying to explain another thing. As I remember, you pointed to evil boss, who don't allow to use Forth. It can be also mocking colleagues or suspicious users, who completely blocks Forth usage by lone programmers. Even updating, ANS does not help so much. So, turning slightly back to FILEs and floating points, I regularly ask my programmers, what he wants to see in new Forth revision. They may be right or not, suggest non-standard or even non-Forth approach, but when I see some words appearing in applications constantly, I add them to the next revision of currently using Forth. So programmers are happy with their applications, not with any kind of downloaded libraries, and nobody cares which exactly programming language is used. From my point of view, with narrow and compact standard, described only very basic properties, life will be easier, because of many new approaches and technologies appears in the IT area for the last 20 years. I don't want to discuss the small tactical things, as a word sets or parameter formats. I'm just observing a bad enough 'markers' right now
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web