Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #37787 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-03-31 15:13 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-06-15 23:35 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 325 — 39 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-03-31 15:13 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work jfong@ms4.hinet.net - 2015-03-31 20:55 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-04-01 11:26 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-01 08:39 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-04-01 17:35 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-12 15:18 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-04-02 10:35 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-04-02 10:08 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-01 12:33 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-04-01 22:16 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-01 13:40 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-04-02 17:07 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-02 19:18 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-04-03 06:43 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-03 10:49 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work beeflo <beeflobill@gmail.com> - 2015-04-03 11:17 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-04-03 14:35 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-04-03 19:42 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work jkn_gg@nicorp.f9.co.uk - 2015-04-03 14:34 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-04-03 20:52 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work jkn_gg@nicorp.f9.co.uk - 2015-04-04 03:47 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-04 14:07 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-04-05 00:11 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work jkn_gg@nicorp.f9.co.uk - 2015-04-05 08:11 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-04-03 23:50 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2015-04-04 05:44 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-03 21:32 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2015-04-04 17:03 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-04 21:56 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2015-04-05 18:11 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-05 10:13 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2015-04-06 14:03 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-04-06 14:44 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2015-04-07 11:02 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-07 17:21 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-07 16:02 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-07 11:06 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2015-04-03 18:52 -1000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-05 03:54 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2015-04-05 18:21 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-05 21:47 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-12 14:41 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-12 23:20 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-12 18:40 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-06-13 04:36 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-13 23:12 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-06-14 09:53 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-14 18:38 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-15 21:03 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-15 19:38 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 22:54 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-16 10:01 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-16 18:25 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-17 10:11 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 22:49 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-15 21:56 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-16 00:11 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-16 07:21 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-16 19:45 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-17 10:34 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 08:49 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work mhx@iae.nl - 2015-06-17 13:50 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-17 18:36 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 23:44 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-06-17 21:14 -1000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 00:15 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-18 09:27 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 02:04 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 03:32 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 04:19 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-18 12:31 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 05:57 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-18 12:21 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-06-18 08:01 -1000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-18 12:11 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-06-18 17:25 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-18 22:56 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work coos <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-06-18 18:54 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-18 10:53 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-18 21:31 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 23:58 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-19 08:23 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 01:01 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Thomas Östreicher <thomas.oestreicher@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 01:07 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-19 09:38 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 02:51 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-20 16:35 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 21:28 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-20 21:33 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 21:49 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-21 14:01 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-21 14:19 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-22 13:16 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-22 16:53 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-23 15:39 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-23 18:11 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-20 16:26 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-20 21:55 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-21 14:26 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-22 00:29 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-22 03:24 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-22 07:49 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-21 21:16 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 02:09 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-06-22 05:57 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-21 14:27 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-22 11:58 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 01:04 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-20 16:17 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 00:55 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 02:42 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 03:56 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 02:47 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-19 11:37 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-19 19:56 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-21 21:23 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-22 08:39 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-22 11:27 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-22 16:07 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-21 14:56 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 00:40 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 10:55 +0300
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-21 14:43 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 02:05 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-22 16:41 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-19 12:55 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-18 10:00 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-18 20:56 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 03:13 +0300
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-19 08:37 +0100
WAS: bug in VFX... IS: More rants from Rantman of Rantland rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 16:33 -0400
Re: WAS: bug in VFX... IS: More rants from Rantman of Rantland "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-06-19 05:19 -0400
Re: WAS: bug in VFX... IS: More rants from Rantman of Rantland Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-06-19 13:38 +0100
Re: WAS: bug in VFX... IS: More rants from Rantman of Rantland rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 12:29 -0400
Re: WAS: bug in VFX... IS: More rants from Rantman of Rantland "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-06-19 17:53 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-19 12:07 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-19 12:55 +0000
The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-20 15:36 +0000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-06-20 14:01 -0400
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-06-20 08:33 -1000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-20 21:18 -0700
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-21 13:09 +0000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-21 14:50 +0000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-21 23:58 +0200
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-22 10:54 +0000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-22 15:52 +0000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-22 17:08 +0000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-23 16:43 +0000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-22 20:19 +0200
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-22 08:47 +0000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-22 13:58 +0000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-22 15:37 +0000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-22 17:02 +0000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-23 16:29 +0000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-23 18:18 +0000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 (was: bug in VFX --- IF does't work) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 00:42 -0700
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-06-22 21:47 -1000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 02:42 -0700
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 03:38 -0700
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-23 12:55 +0000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:55 -0700
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 peter.m.falth@gmail.com - 2015-06-23 08:29 -0700
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-23 16:47 +0000
Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94 anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-23 10:30 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-19 15:07 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-20 16:09 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-22 16:24 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-15 17:41 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-15 16:54 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 22:57 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-13 10:51 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-13 12:57 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-13 21:53 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-13 22:41 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-14 11:42 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-14 09:26 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-14 23:15 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-14 16:39 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-14 15:21 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-14 23:20 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-14 16:48 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-14 17:52 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-06-14 21:13 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-14 20:09 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-03 10:25 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-04-03 14:43 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-04-03 20:14 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work jfong@ms4.hinet.net - 2015-04-03 23:16 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-04-03 20:02 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-04-03 20:46 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-04-04 06:43 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-04-04 17:31 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-04-04 15:54 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-04 21:01 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-06 04:48 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-04 13:57 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-04-05 00:16 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-04-05 10:11 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-05 14:37 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-06 04:52 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-05 21:58 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-04-06 13:56 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-04-06 22:22 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-06 18:09 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-04-07 14:30 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-04-07 15:43 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-10 19:55 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-04-11 15:51 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-11 16:25 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-04-12 10:22 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-04-12 10:48 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-04-12 10:53 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-04-12 14:18 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-04-12 14:35 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-04-13 12:36 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 06:00 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-04-13 21:02 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 13:32 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-12 09:40 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 13:38 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-04-12 18:55 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-13 00:07 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-04-13 08:07 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-12 23:09 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 20:35 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-05-13 10:10 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-13 15:58 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-13 13:13 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-05-14 11:40 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-14 18:48 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-12 21:51 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-04-13 00:13 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-12 20:43 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-04-13 09:53 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-04-14 09:46 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-14 10:01 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-04-14 18:24 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-04-14 17:17 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 18:08 +0300
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-04-06 22:07 -0400
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-04-06 16:44 -1000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-04-07 11:09 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-04-07 14:49 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-04-08 01:58 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-20 23:21 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-04-21 02:10 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-04-21 10:41 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-04-21 13:31 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-04-21 06:00 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-04-21 14:09 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-04-22 10:59 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-04-22 11:41 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-04-22 14:13 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-04-22 14:06 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-04-22 15:42 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-04-22 15:57 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-04-22 16:43 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-04-24 05:35 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-04-24 11:22 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-24 11:18 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-04-25 01:21 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-04-25 16:49 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-05-03 21:07 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-03 23:25 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work gwj.nexus@gmail.com - 2015-05-05 10:53 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-05 19:10 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Gerry <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-05-06 21:41 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-07 11:05 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-08 11:35 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-06 14:09 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-05-04 03:08 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-04 09:23 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-05-04 20:32 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-06 13:26 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-05-06 20:00 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-06 13:24 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-08 12:07 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-08 18:26 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-05-09 01:10 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-12 16:13 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-05-13 00:11 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-04 16:58 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work gwj.nexus@gmail.com - 2015-05-05 11:24 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-06 13:13 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-24 13:11 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-25 21:05 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-04-21 14:06 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-22 20:05 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-04-23 05:57 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-04-23 10:50 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-24 11:59 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-12 23:18 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 20:24 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-04-24 08:56 -1000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-24 12:09 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-04-24 22:29 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-15 17:54 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-02 09:04 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-02 21:04 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-04-03 10:48 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 17:52 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-04-10 16:13 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-11 16:56 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-12 09:28 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-03 10:26 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-04-05 21:54 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-04-26 01:20 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-04-26 15:09 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-04-27 03:13 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-01 14:59 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-05-01 19:38 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 16:59 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-02 15:56 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-05-01 22:45 +0200
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2015-05-02 02:58 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-05-02 11:51 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-05-02 12:25 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-02 16:45 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-02 19:12 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-03 16:23 +0000
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-03 15:47 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-05-04 10:11 +0100
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 09:16 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work roman.pavlyuk.0@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 10:15 -0700
Re: bug in VFX --- IF does't work "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-15 23:35 +0000
Page 1 of 17 [1] 2 3 … 17 Next page →
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 15:13 -0700 |
| Subject | bug in VFX --- IF does't work |
| Message-ID | <2e398151-3bb9-4827-8b25-2065117703f1@googlegroups.com> |
: my-if [ ' if ] literal execute ; immediate ok
: ttt ( flag -- ) my-if ." true " else ." false " then ;
Err# -14 ERR: Attempt to interpret a compile only definition.
-> : ttt ( flag -- ) my-if ." true " else ." false " then ;
^
see my-if
MY-IF (is IMMEDIATE)
( 004C7A80 E89B23F4FF ) CALL 00409E20 IF
( 004C7A85 C3 ) NEXT,
( 6 bytes, 2 instructions )
ok
Actually, I have already figured out a way to work around this bug. This is the same bug that I previously discovered in Gforth when writing MACRO: (the ; doesn't have an xt). Now in VFX I find that IF has an xt, but it doesn't work.
This is related to what Anton Ertl said in this thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/2OsjCUri9eY
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 12:07:24 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote:
> hughaguilar96@gmail.com writes:
> >BTW: There is a weirdity in Gforth that prevents this from working:
> >
> >: ," postpone s" string, ;
>
> POSTPONE S" gives you the compilation semantics of S". I think you
> want the interpretation semantics here. That would be:
>
> : ," ['] S" execute string, ;
>
> But why not just use
>
> : ," '"' parse string, ;
I don't think that ANS-Forth is ready to be used for writing commercial software. Every time that I write a program, even a simple program, I run into a bug in either the ANS-Forth design or in the ANS-Forth compliant compiler. No employer has the time or the money to dink around with this nonsense.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jfong@ms4.hinet.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 20:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b065a45-83f2-449a-b2e9-625e2066713a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37787 |
This makes me think of Mr. Charles Moore who had left us for a similar reason. I miss him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-01 11:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <551bd2e8.431024070@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #37787 |
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:13:12 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >: my-if [ ' if ] literal execute ; immediate ok >: ttt ( flag -- ) my-if ." true " else ." false " then ;=20 >Err# -14 ERR: Attempt to interpret a compile only definition. > -> : ttt ( flag -- ) my-if ." true " else ." false " then ; > ^ >see my-if=20 >MY-IF (is IMMEDIATE)=20 >( 004C7A80 E89B23F4FF ) CALL 00409E20 IF >( 004C7A85 C3 ) NEXT, >( 6 bytes, 2 instructions ) > ok It works fine. You compiled MY-IF to use the interpretation behaviour of IF. VFX compiled the interpretation behaviour of IF. You ran MY-IF and got the interpretation behaviour of IF. What are you complaining about? I have been saying for a couple of years now that the ANS standard's definition of compilation and interpretation is incomprehensible for mere mortals such as myself. Every time I reread the standard on this topic, the more I believe that the standard's description of compilation and interpretation needs a complete rewrite. In essence, Forth is a language of simplicity. Complexity such as an optimising compiler is hidden. However, we now have a standard in which the classic Forth interpreter loop is broken according to some. We need to fix this by going back to basics rather than putting bandages on bad prose. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-01 08:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f80284e-1cc9-4a8a-9680-90dd599dc322@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37804 |
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 4:26:52 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > We need to fix this by going back > to basics rather than putting bandages on bad prose. Are you suggesting that in order to go forward, we must first go backward and then take another route? Jason
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-01 17:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <551c2b6a.453681296@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #37814 |
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 4:26:52 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > >> We need to fix this by going back >> to basics rather than putting bandages on bad prose. > >Are you suggesting that in order to go forward, we must first >go backward and then take another route? No I'm saying that the standard needs to define what it means from scratch. At present it attempts this by layers of new text over old text. Whether this is going backwards I do not know. One consideration is that many modern Forth compilers now use native code compilation with optimisation and take advantage of what ANS Forth permitted in 1994. The world has changed, we ain't in Kansas any more. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-12 15:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba786455-9f32-4329-9b38-c5b5d268905f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37819 |
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 10:35:29 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Jason Damisch > <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 4:26:52 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > > > >> We need to fix this by going back > >> to basics rather than putting bandages on bad prose. > > > >Are you suggesting that in order to go forward, we must first > >go backward and then take another route? > > No I'm saying that the standard needs to define what it means from > scratch. At present it attempts this by layers of new text over > old text. Whether this is going backwards I do not know. One > consideration is that many modern Forth compilers now use > native code compilation with optimisation and take advantage > of what ANS Forth permitted in 1994. The world has changed, > we ain't in Kansas any more. > > Stephen This is totally not true. My disambiguifiers work under VFX, and VFX continues to compile optimized code the same as always --- ambiguity was not necessary for optimization.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-02 10:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20150402103550.2f5c50d5@T60A> |
| In reply to | #37814 |
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:39:06 -0700 (PDT) Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 4:26:52 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > > > We need to fix this by going back > > to basics rather than putting bandages on bad prose. > > Are you suggesting that in order to go forward, we must first > go backward and then take another route? I think there are a few Forths that don't have an interpreter, they just do a JIT compile on the input line, and then execute. Is there anything missing in this approach? Jan Coombs -- email valid, else fix dots and hyphen jan4clf2014@murrayhyphenmicroftdotcodotuk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-02 10:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Apr2.120856@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #37830 |
Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> writes:
>I think there are a few Forths that don't have an interpreter,
>they just do a JIT compile on the input line, and then execute.
>
>Is there anything missing in this approach?
If you do it on a per-line basis, many parsing words will not work as
intended, e.g.:
: foo ;
Here one would compile ":", then try to compile FOO, which will
probably not be found.
If it is found the it compiles FOO and performs the compilation
semantics of ";"; then it executes ":", which then parses a name from
the current line (which is exhausted). then executes FOO, then
executes the run-time of ";"; all that's not really what's intended.
So if you go that way, you have to change the implementation of Forth
in very many places.
Doing it on a per-word basis is closer to the usual way, but then what
is the benefit? E.g., say you want to define DEFER and IS:
: defer ( "name" -- ) create ['] abort , does> @ execute ;
: is ( xt "name" -- ) ' >body ! ;
You still need ' and ['], because these words do different things: [']
parses at compile-time, ' parses at run-time.
- 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 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-01 12:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c73bb02b-badf-4da0-968f-2068da15314b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37804 |
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 4:26:52 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:13:12 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@gmail.com > wrote: > > >: my-if [ ' if ] literal execute ; immediate ok > >: ttt ( flag -- ) my-if ." true " else ." false " then ;=20 > >Err# -14 ERR: Attempt to interpret a compile only definition. > > -> : ttt ( flag -- ) my-if ." true " else ." false " then ; > > ^ > >see my-if=20 > >MY-IF (is IMMEDIATE)=20 > >( 004C7A80 E89B23F4FF ) CALL 00409E20 IF > >( 004C7A85 C3 ) NEXT, > >( 6 bytes, 2 instructions ) > > ok > > It works fine. You compiled MY-IF to use the interpretation > behaviour of IF. VFX compiled the interpretation behaviour > of IF. You ran MY-IF and got the interpretation behaviour of > IF. What are you complaining about? Well, you said "interpretation behavior" three times, so I felt inspired to look this up in the ANS-Forth document section on IF (6.1.1700): "Interpretation semantics for this word are undefined." You ask what I'm complaining about, but then your explanation comes to "undefined." That is funny! This is actually a familiar phrase, as I recently ran into the same thing in this thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/2OsjCUri9eY > I have been saying for a couple of years now that the ANS > standard's definition of compilation and interpretation is > incomprehensible for mere mortals such as myself. Every time > I reread the standard on this topic, the more I believe that > the standard's description of compilation and interpretation > needs a complete rewrite. > > In essence, Forth is a language of simplicity. Complexity such > as an optimising compiler is hidden. However, we now have a > standard in which the classic Forth interpreter loop is > broken according to some. We need to fix this by going back > to basics rather than putting bandages on bad prose. I've been saying since 2009, which is more than a couple of years, that the solution is to define the language as a cross-compiler. In MFX I had HOST and TARG modes, so it was obvious which words were compile-time or run-time. Everything that runs at compile-time (either in the REPL or an immediate word used in a colon-word definition) had to have been defined in HOST mode. Everything that runs at run-time (on the MiniForth processor in the case of MFX) is defined in TARG mode. Also, every TARG mode word is defined twice --- we have the run-time version that executes on the target machine, and we have a compile-time version that is automatically generated as if it were hand-written in HOST mode and which compiles the TARG-mode version of itself --- these two words are in separate vocabularies and have distinct xt values, so there is no confusion between them. A cross-compiler is somewhat complicated to write, but using the cross-compiler is actually simpler for the user (presumably a "mere mortal") than using ANS-Forth is, because there is no confusion between "interpretation semantics" and "compilation semantics" as there is in ANS-Forth. You are using the term "semantics" that is defined as "the meaning of words" --- so it would make sense if two kinds of semantics (interpretation and compilation) are in distinct vocabularies, because they have different meanings --- but in ANS-Forth you have both kinds of semantics jumbled together in the same vocabulary (the FORTH-WORDLIST vocabulary), which is why it is confusing and will continue to be confusing indefinitely, and won't be cleared up by rewriting the ANS-Forth document as you suggest. The HOST mode words are written in a Forth running on the desktop-computer (I used UR/Forth for MFX, but am using VFX now). This host Forth still has the same problem as before, with compile-time words and run-time words jumbled together in the same vocabulary, so all that I've succeeded in doing is pushing the problem uphill, but the problem is still there. Pushing the problem uphill is actually quite helpful though, because it gets the problem out of the way for the common user. Programming is done at three levels, and the problem has been pushed all the way up to level-3, so most programmers never bump into the problem. These are the levels: 1.) novice: Writes only in TARG mode. These guys typically came from a C programming background and don't know what "compile-time code" is --- this is common --- everybody starts here, and they can make a career out of writing application programs without learning any more than this. 2.) intermediate: Writes in both TARG mode and HOST mode, but only writes HOST mode words that execute at run-time for HOST mode (which is compile-time for TARG words) --- this is rare --- it is only necessary to work at this level when adding any meta-compiling word to the cross-compiler. 3.) advanced: Writes in both TARG mode and HOST mode, and writes HOST mode words that execute at compile-time for HOST mode (bumping into the aforementioned problem) --- this is extremely rare (I'm the only person who has ever done this) --- it is necessary when retargeting the cross-compiler for a new processor. I invented all of this for MFX (I distinctly remember when the idea came to me, while I was bicycling in Papago Park). MFX was cross-compiling to a micro-controller. The same technique can be used when the target for the application program is the same computer that the cross-compiler is using as a host. This technique simplifies life considerably for the application programmer, and it can be used consistently everywhere. I'm very dubious that you know how to write a cross-compiler, because of this thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/lc53/comp.lang.forth/wP5nw1ClzsM/E-TV9v2y9RoJ You said this: On Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 3:18:13 PM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:32:02 -0500, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >Suppose you extended the cross-compiler so that the TARGET could be the > >HOST . Then you'd have a clear distinction between COMPILER words and > >regular words, but the distinction between HOST and TARGET would have > >disappeared. > > There are three types of compilation involved > 1) Host compilation > 2) Clone compilation (target CPU same as host and memory matches) > 3) Cross compilation (target CPU is not host CPU) > > In the third case you have to simulate *everything* when dealing > with both the definition and execution of defining words. It's not > easy. You also have to extend the normal Forth compiler by at least > two time frames. Forth cross compilers are much more complicated > and much more subtle than they appear to be. That was mind-blowing in 2009, and it still is. You don't have to simulate the target processor on the host computer! WTF??? The fundamental idea has not come to you yet --- have you tried bicycling in the park? --- that is the best way to get these epiphanies. I wrote MFX in 1994/1995, and I figured it out on my own without doing any research on Forth cross-compilation. Since then, I have met many people who say that Forth cross-compilation is "easy" and "well-established" etc. --- I have yet to meet anybody who knows what they are talking about --- everybody starts the day by describing it as "easy," and ends the day by describing it as "complicated and subtle" and by making totally incorrect statements about the subject. Jeff Fox told me to not bother reading the Forth-200x document on cross-compilation because it was over-complicated and unnecessarily confusing, and I had nothing to learn from it --- so I haven't read it --- I think you guys should learn from me, and not the other way around.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-01 22:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xwf0k5wdwa0t4m@localhost> |
| In reply to | #37821 |
On Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:33:49 -0400, <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 4:26:52 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: >> I have been saying for a couple of years now that the ANS >> standard's definition of compilation and interpretation is >> incomprehensible for mere mortals such as myself. Every time >> I reread the standard on this topic, the more I believe that >> the standard's description of compilation and interpretation >> needs a complete rewrite. >> >> In essence, Forth is a language of simplicity. Complexity such >> as an optimising compiler is hidden. However, we now have a >> standard in which the classic Forth interpreter loop is >> broken according to some. We need to fix this by going back >> to basics rather than putting bandages on bad prose. > > I've been saying since 2009, which is more than a couple of > years, that the solution is to define the language as a > cross-compiler. If the snipped code won't work on the host, why would it work after cross-compiling? ... Rod Pemberton -- Cars kill more people than guns in the U.S. Yet, no one is trying to take away your car.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-01 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0489b859-b786-45b8-a44f-2795378f59d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37804 |
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 4:26:52 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:13:12 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@gmail.com > wrote: > > >: my-if [ ' if ] literal execute ; immediate ok > >: ttt ( flag -- ) my-if ." true " else ." false " then ;=20 > >Err# -14 ERR: Attempt to interpret a compile only definition. > > -> : ttt ( flag -- ) my-if ." true " else ." false " then ; > > ^ > >see my-if=20 > >MY-IF (is IMMEDIATE)=20 > >( 004C7A80 E89B23F4FF ) CALL 00409E20 IF > >( 004C7A85 C3 ) NEXT, > >( 6 bytes, 2 instructions ) > > ok > > It works fine. You compiled MY-IF to use the interpretation > behaviour of IF. VFX compiled the interpretation behaviour > of IF. You ran MY-IF and got the interpretation behaviour of > IF. What are you complaining about? So how do you write SYNONYM so that it can make a synonym of an immediate word? This is how I discovered the problem --- I was meta-compiling something similar to the hand-written code that I showed above --- also (I haven't checked yet), is this problem for all immediate words or just IF and some others? I notice that your ; has an xt, whereas ; doesn't have an xt in Gforth. The solution that I'm coming to, is to save the string rather than the xt, and have the synonim EVALUATE it --- but this is late-binding --- if the original word gets rewritten, the synonym will also change and chaos will result.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-02 17:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <551d76ee.538549100@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #37823 |
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 13:40:52 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@gmail.com
wrote:
>So how do you write SYNONYM so that it can make a synonym of an immediate w=
>ord?
The VFX source code is:
: SynComp, \ xt --
\ Compile a child of SYNONYM.
>body @ compile,
;
: Synonym \ "<new-name>" "<curdef>" --
\ *G Create a new definition which redirects to an existing one.
\ ** Normal dictionary searches for *\i{<new-name>} will return
\ ** the xt of *\i{<curdef>}.
create
hide ' reveal dup , immediate?
if immediate endif
['] SynComp, set-compiler
$010 latest set-bit \ set header's alias bit
interp>
@ execute
;
For some words you may have to RTFM.
Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-02 19:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <143e9857-6175-4c12-95cb-cff38fdb7227@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37844 |
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 10:07:52 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 13:40:52 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >So how do you write SYNONYM so that it can make a synonym of an immediate w=
> >ord?
>
> The VFX source code is:
>
> : SynComp, \ xt --
> \ Compile a child of SYNONYM.
> >body @ compile,
> ;
>
> : Synonym \ "<new-name>" "<curdef>" --
> \ *G Create a new definition which redirects to an existing one.
> \ ** Normal dictionary searches for *\i{<new-name>} will return
> \ ** the xt of *\i{<curdef>}.
> create
> hide ' reveal dup , immediate?
> if immediate endif
> ['] SynComp, set-compiler
> $010 latest set-bit \ set header's alias bit
> interp>
> @ execute
> ;
>
> For some words you may have to RTFM.
>
> Stephen
This is not ANS-Forth code --- I don't want to RTFM because I don't want to become an expert on VFX --- I'm already an expert on ANS-Forth.
Being an expert on ANS-Forth is really a negative accomplishment as it decreases my chances of getting a job as a programmer --- and becoming an expert on VFX would be worse.
I still say that VFX has a bug because it is failing on my example code that was just basic ANS-Forth code and should have worked on any standard-compliant Forth system.
It seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want VFX to be considered to be ANS-Forth, but you also want vendor lock-in. This marketing strategy makes you a very bad choice for being on the Forth-200x committee. You are going to purposely sabotage the standard so that standard programs will be grossly restricted, just like ANS-Forth --- but VFX will work around the bugs in the standard in a non-standard way, so you get vendor lock-in --- and VFX will be considered to be Forth-200x compliant, because you are on the committee and you say that it is compliant.
ANS-Forth, and now Forth-200x, are harming the Forth community because everybody in the real world seem them as an effort to declare a commercial product to be the standard and require everybody who wants to be considered to be a Forth programmer to buy that product. People can easily avoid this problem simply by abandoning Forth and switching over to C --- the C standard is not owned by any particular vendor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-03 06:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <551e3467.587054772@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #37863 |
On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 19:18:04 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@gmail.com
wrote:
>> The VFX source code is:
>>=20
>> : SynComp, \ xt --
>> \ Compile a child of SYNONYM.
>> >body @ compile,
>> ;
>>=20
>> : Synonym \ "<new-name>" "<curdef>" --
>> \ *G Create a new definition which redirects to an existing one.
>> \ ** Normal dictionary searches for *\i{<new-name>} will return
>> \ ** the xt of *\i{<curdef>}.
>> create
>> hide ' reveal dup , immediate?
>> if immediate endif
>> ['] SynComp, set-compiler
>> $010 latest set-bit \ set header's alias bit
>> interp>
>> @ execute
>> ;
>>=20
>> For some words you may have to RTFM.
>>=20
>> Stephen
>
>This is not ANS-Forth code --- I don't want to RTFM because I don't want to=
> become an expert on VFX --- I'm already an expert on ANS-Forth.
You asked a tech-support question about VFX. I answered it pointing
out that your initial assumption (how IF works) was wrong.
The code illustrates precisely why SYNONYM is defined the way it is
defined - because it requires carnal knowledge. If you want to know
how SYNONYM works:
"So how do you write SYNONYM so that it can make a synonym of an
immediate word?"
then do not complain when you are told.
Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-03 10:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7615f351-99f7-405d-b2dd-ec06b035f1e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37875 |
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 11:42:55 PM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 19:18:04 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@gmail.com > wrote: > >This is not ANS-Forth code --- I don't want to RTFM because I don't want to= > > become an expert on VFX --- I'm already an expert on ANS-Forth. > > You asked a tech-support question about VFX. I answered it pointing > out that your initial assumption (how IF works) was wrong. I'm getting really tired of everybody on comp.lang.forth telling me that I'm wrong about everything. What you are saying here is no different from Alex McDonald saying that I have a "serious misunderstand of how pointers work" --- typical cult behavior. > The code illustrates precisely why SYNONYM is defined the way it is > defined - because it requires carnal knowledge. If you want to know > how SYNONYM works: > "So how do you write SYNONYM so that it can make a synonym of an > immediate word?" > then do not complain when you are told. There is no carnal knowledge needed to implement SYNONYM unless you want tick of the synonym to return the same xt as tick of the original word --- but why would anybody want that? If the synonym has a distinct xt then implementing SYNONYM in ANS-Forth should be trivial --- I wrote it in about 10 minutes. Whenever I write code and it doesn't work, my first assumption is that there is a bug in the compiler --- I don't even consider the possibility that I have made a mistake, as this is pretty rare. You can get all the cult members (Albert v.d.Horst so far) to back you up and say that I'm wrong about everything --- but you can't buffalo me --- I know I'm right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | beeflo <beeflobill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-03 11:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed6be6a0-749c-4b2b-8d4e-f2396f99bde4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37889 |
> I'm getting really tired of everybody on comp.lang.forth telling me that I'm wrong about everything. ...... > Whenever I write code and it doesn't work, my first assumption is that there is a bug in the compiler --- I don't even consider the possibility that I have made a mistake, as this is pretty rare. > > You can get all the cult members (Albert v.d.Horst so far) to back you up and say that I'm wrong about everything --- but you can't buffalo me --- I know I'm right. Relax. I doubt you can really afford to be so angry about nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-03 14:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mfmmfg$7pd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37890 |
On 4/3/2015 2:17 PM, beeflo wrote: >> I'm getting really tired of everybody on comp.lang.forth telling me that I'm wrong about everything. > ...... >> Whenever I write code and it doesn't work, my first assumption is that there is a bug in the compiler --- I don't even consider the possibility that I have made a mistake, as this is pretty rare. >> >> You can get all the cult members (Albert v.d.Horst so far) to back you up and say that I'm wrong about everything --- but you can't buffalo me --- I know I'm right. > > Relax. I doubt you can really afford to be so angry about nothing. Sometimes nothing is all you have. Why not be angry about it? -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-03 19:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mfmmsk$9mc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37889 |
on 03/04/2015 18:49:58, wrote: > On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 11:42:55 PM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 19:18:04 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >This is not ANS-Forth code --- I don't want to RTFM because I don't want to >> > become an expert on VFX --- I'm already an expert on ANS-Forth. It's been a consistent theme here that you *don't* understand the standard because you haven't read it. For instance, wondering where interpret semantics for S" were defined. > >> The code illustrates precisely why SYNONYM is defined the way it is >> defined - because it requires carnal knowledge. If you want to know >> how SYNONYM works: >> "So how do you write SYNONYM so that it can make a synonym of an >> immediate word?" >> then do not complain when you are told. > > There is no carnal knowledge needed to implement SYNONYM unless you > want tick of the synonym to return the same xt as tick of the original > word --- but why would anybody want that? As long as the synonym xt does exactly the same as the original xt in both interpret and compile, then who cares indeed. The standard doesn't require it. > > If the synonym has a distinct xt then implementing SYNONYM in > ANS-Forth should be trivial --- I wrote it in about 10 minutes. > Post it here. Anton pointed out a flaw with my attempt; it failed to correctly work with words that have different interpret & compile actions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jkn_gg@nicorp.f9.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-03 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1eaf7ea7-c3c5-40b5-bd22-24b97be73348@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37889 |
On Friday, 3 April 2015 18:50:00 UTC+1, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> Whenever I write code and it doesn't work, my first assumption is that there is a bug in the compiler --- I don't even consider the possibility that I have made a mistake, as this is pretty rare.
>
Have you any idea how statements like this make you appear to others? I'd mark it down as an attempt at humo(u)r if you didn't have a track record of such utterances.
J^n
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-03 20:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mfnci7$lbt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37901 |
On 4/3/2015 5:34 PM, jkn_gg@nicorp.f9.co.uk wrote: > On Friday, 3 April 2015 18:50:00 UTC+1, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Whenever I write code and it doesn't work, my first assumption is that there is a bug in the compiler --- I don't even consider the possibility that I have made a mistake, as this is pretty rare. >> > > Have you any idea how statements like this make you appear to others? I'd mark it down as an attempt at humo(u)r if you didn't have a track record of such utterances. I initially thought the same thing, but then I recalled back in the day when I did my work 8 hours a day (or more), every day and then hobbied in it on the weekends. I felt the same way. I remember once (quite awhile ago) I found a bug in the behavior of the a C library call. Once I narrowed it to the library call I didn't doubt myself for a minute. I think MS had a policy that if you reported a bug they gave you a free copy of the tool. To give you an idea of how long ago this was, support was by phone! -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 17 [1] 2 3 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web