Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #39232 > unrolled thread
| Started by | chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-05-23 19:27 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-05-24 14:06 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 151 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
unexpected +LOOP behavior chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> - 2015-05-23 19:27 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-23 20:27 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-05-24 13:44 +0200
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-24 10:36 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-05-24 23:16 +0200
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-24 15:57 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-05-25 02:21 +0200
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-24 15:21 -1000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-24 19:49 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-24 18:22 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-26 17:20 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 14:15 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-26 08:37 -1000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 15:09 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-26 09:19 -1000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 17:08 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 15:42 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 19:30 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 17:45 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 21:33 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-05-27 14:08 +0200
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 06:32 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-05-27 16:15 +0200
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-26 14:32 -1000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-27 08:30 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 17:15 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-29 21:05 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 01:41 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-05-24 23:26 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-25 14:33 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 10:56 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 11:28 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 14:33 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-25 12:57 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 23:01 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-25 14:21 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-05-26 23:59 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-27 09:15 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-27 10:06 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 12:03 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-27 16:23 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 12:39 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 22:14 +0200
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 17:13 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 23:36 +0200
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 18:06 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-05-29 10:35 +0200
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-29 12:16 +0100
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-29 09:42 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-05-29 16:16 +0200
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-29 15:24 +0100
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Rod Pemberton" <fork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-05-27 17:32 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-05-27 23:59 +0200
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 19:31 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 23:11 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-28 12:21 +0100
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-28 12:24 +0100
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-05-29 10:53 +0200
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-29 12:19 +0100
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-29 13:51 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-05-29 17:48 +0200
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-05-29 02:08 +0200
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-29 08:25 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-29 12:40 +0100
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-29 13:16 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-05-29 18:43 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-29 20:08 +0100
x86 tricks Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-06-05 09:42 +0200
Re: x86 tricks albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-06-05 09:32 +0000
Re: x86 tricks anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-05 09:40 +0000
Re: x86 tricks albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-06-05 11:17 +0000
Re: x86 tricks anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-05 15:49 +0000
Re: x86 tricks "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-05 17:45 +0100
Re: x86 tricks anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-05 16:53 +0000
Re: x86 tricks rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-07 13:20 -0400
Re: x86 tricks anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-08 07:18 +0000
Re: x86 tricks Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-08 17:18 +0200
Re: x86 tricks Tessa Bonting <tessa.bonting@gmail.com> - 2015-06-08 08:42 -0700
Re: x86 tricks albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-06-06 09:47 +0000
Re: x86 tricks anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-07 15:05 +0000
Re: x86 tricks "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-07 17:49 +0100
Re: x86 tricks "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-05 13:19 +0100
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 01:38 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-23 21:33 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-23 22:10 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> - 2015-05-23 22:20 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-25 21:13 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Rod Pemberton" <fork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-05-27 17:34 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 22:04 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-28 01:27 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Rod Pemberton" <fork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-05-28 03:20 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-28 04:13 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Rod Pemberton" <fork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-05-29 04:23 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-29 11:28 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Rod Pemberton" <fork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-05-29 18:32 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-29 18:53 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-23 22:26 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-23 21:37 -1000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-24 10:24 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Rod Pemberton" <fork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-05-24 20:40 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 14:08 +0200
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Rod Pemberton" <fork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-05-25 17:27 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-25 14:47 -1000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Rod Pemberton" <fork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-05-27 17:33 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 12:53 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-25 13:05 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-25 14:49 -1000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 18:03 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-25 16:44 -1000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 22:56 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-26 08:05 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-24 10:43 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-24 08:29 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-24 15:44 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 00:57 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 13:11 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-06-05 12:24 -1000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2015-06-06 13:29 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-07 14:56 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-06-07 10:38 -1000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-08 08:08 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-24 10:01 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-24 10:40 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-24 11:29 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-25 09:51 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-25 10:44 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-25 12:34 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-25 12:59 -0700
unexpected +LOOP behavior Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-24 01:39 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-05-24 14:46 +0200
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 01:17 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Rod Pemberton" <fork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-05-24 20:48 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-24 18:15 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-25 12:35 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior "Rod Pemberton" <fork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-05-25 17:27 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 18:16 -0400
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 16:17 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 17:16 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 17:50 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 18:47 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 20:01 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 20:29 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 20:32 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-26 08:03 +0000
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 01:10 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-26 22:31 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-26 20:07 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 20:20 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-26 22:00 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 02:41 -0700
Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-24 14:06 +0000
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-08 08:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Jun8.100831@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #39620 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>If you want an unsigned incrementing or
>decrementing loop, since they aren't standardized you can make them work
>the most efficient way.
OTOH, one may want to do them the same way as existing systems in
order to establish common practice.
- 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 2015: http://www.mpeforth.com/euroforth2015/euroforth2015.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-24 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a94092e-a03e-47d4-9d03-d53e6b504ff1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #39239 |
On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 10:26:09 PM UTC-7, Michael Barry wrote: > On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 10:10:32 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > > ... > > > > I'm pretty sure that DO loops go back to the very original Forth, so it > > was likely Charles Moore who came up with the idea. > > > > ... > > I meant the optimization, not the implementation. You can check your > Forth by comparing R@ and I inside a loop. If they're equal, then > there is no V-flag optimization. If they're different, then it is > likely present. > > Mike You're right --- I remember now that this was new to Forth-83. You are likely also right that it was Laxen and Perry who came up with this, as F83 was the reference compiler for Forth-83.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-24 10:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mjsnrk$apk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39237 |
On 5/24/2015 1:10 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > A problem I see with ANS-Forth, is too much concern about legacy > code. Yes.... There are those who talk and those who do. I seem to recall that when you tried to "help" the standards committee you couldn't keep your insanity in check and were booted out. So now you endlessly kibitz and complain. You don't need ANS Forth. So why are you so obsessed with it? No, don't reply. That was just rhetorical. Hey people. Can't you read the sign? "Please, don't feed the troll". -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-24 11:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e914f756-4608-4dd0-a602-34688da0e790@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #39248 |
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 7:41:00 AM UTC-7, rickman wrote: > On 5/24/2015 1:10 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > > > A problem I see with ANS-Forth, is too much concern about legacy > > code. > > Yes.... There are those who talk and those who do. I seem to recall > that when you tried to "help" the standards committee you couldn't keep > your insanity in check and were booted out. So now you endlessly kibitz > and complain. You don't need ANS Forth. So why are you so obsessed > with it? No, don't reply. That was just rhetorical. > > Hey people. Can't you read the sign? "Please, don't feed the troll". > > -- > > Rick I left the Forth-200x mailing list because Elizabeth Rather offended me. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/OSGAn7bsDU0 This is what she said that I found offensive: On Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:09:59 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 9/26/13 2:27 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote: > > In article <043a32ac-c009-4aff-beda-aa4041daadcb@googlegroups.com>, > > <hughag...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:44:35 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >>> But my point is that you can define data objects to behave *exactly* the > >>> way you want them to, to solve the problem at hand. > > >> I totally disagree with this. It is foolish to custom-implement basic > >> data structures such as arrays for every application. It is easy to > >> write a general-purpose array or linked-list or whatever, that works > >> exactly the way that you want it to for *every* application. > Does "*every* application" you write use exactly the same kind of data > arranged in the same way? If so, having written it once you can reuse it > often. If not, you either have to rearrange your data to make it work or > modify your "general-purpose" structure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mjvjru$1ft$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39254 |
on 24/05/2015 11:29:19, huge agoolar wrote: > > I left the Forth-200x mailing list because Elizabeth Rather offended > me. No, you went apeshit & got kicked out. You asked to be ejected, and to his eternal credit, Peter Knaggs applied the boot and propelled your sad arse over the horizon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 10:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb015a23-6eb8-46c1-bff2-c0c892995e17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #39291 |
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:51:17 AM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote: > on 24/05/2015 11:29:19, huge agoolar wrote: > > > > > I left the Forth-200x mailing list because Elizabeth Rather offended > > me. > > No, you went apeshit & got kicked out. You asked to be ejected, and to > his eternal credit, Peter Knaggs applied the boot and propelled your sad > arse over the horizon. MPE does "joint projects" with Forth Inc., meaning that Forth Inc. is good at selling (because they own the "Forth" name) but they can't program, so after they make a sale they out-source the actual programming to MPE. Peter Knaggs is an employee of MPE, so he is effectively an employee of Elizabeth Rather. All of the Forth-200x committee just do what Elizabeth Rather tells them to do --- Forth-200x is "astro-turfed" meaning that a lot of effort is put into making it appear to be a grassroots effort, but it is really just a marketing gimmick from Forth Inc. striving to give the impression that Forth Inc. sets the standard for the entire Forth community and that Forth programmers such as myself are entirely dependent upon Forth Inc..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 12:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mjvte8$8ne$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39294 |
on 25/05/2015 10:44:49, huff and puff wrote: > On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:51:17 AM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote: >> on 24/05/2015 11:29:19, huge agoolar wrote: >> >> > >> > I left the Forth-200x mailing list because Elizabeth Rather offended >> > me. >> >> No, you went apeshit & got kicked out. You asked to be ejected, and to >> his eternal credit, Peter Knaggs applied the boot and propelled your sad >> arse over the horizon. > > > Peter Knaggs is an employee of MPE, so he is effectively an employee > of Eli zabeth Rather. Peter Knaggs is an employee of Wiltshire Council, where he is Senior Application Developer. Jesus, Hugh, you're as crap at basic research as you are at Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 12:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <463bcb14-e7bc-4999-a21c-9bf7021f4d0e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #39299 |
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 12:34:40 PM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote: > on 25/05/2015 10:44:49, huff and puff wrote: > > On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:51:17 AM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote: > >> on 24/05/2015 11:29:19, huge agoolar wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > I left the Forth-200x mailing list because Elizabeth Rather offended > >> > me. > >> > >> No, you went apeshit & got kicked out. You asked to be ejected, and to > >> his eternal credit, Peter Knaggs applied the boot and propelled your sad > >> arse over the horizon. > > > > > > > Peter Knaggs is an employee of MPE, so he is effectively an employee > > of Eli zabeth Rather. > > Peter Knaggs is an employee of Wiltshire Council, where he is Senior > Application Developer. > > Jesus, Hugh, you're as crap at basic research as you are at Forth. http://www.mpeforth.com/about.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-24 01:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4eb4a9e-1dd7-4e52-b874-f3eec31f5f92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #39232 |
It's a total pain in the ass isn't it? There's no justification for it in my opinion. GForth's behaviour is correct. It's just the standard that is bad in this regard. It seems that the standard was driven by the ability to use a trick (overflow) for boundary detection. Ridiculous.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-24 14:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1mmtfgs5nt6ij.1g0wvl1wii9j7$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #39243 |
Op Sun, 24 May 2015 01:39:25 -0700 (PDT) schreef Mark Wills: > It's a total pain in the ass isn't it? There's no justification for it in my > opinion. GForth's behaviour is correct. It's just the standard that is bad in > this regard. It seems that the standard was driven by the ability to use a > trick (overflow) for boundary detection. Ridiculous. What a strange remark. Gforth, like any other Forth I have tested gives the same result. According to the standard. So an implementation that reproduces standard behaviour is not standard? -- Coos CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 01:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1a8f63e1-9f4a-4768-a5cb-2c29c769b138@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #39245 |
On Sunday, 24 May 2015 13:56:02 UTC+1, Coos Haak wrote: > Op Sun, 24 May 2015 01:39:25 -0700 (PDT) schreef Mark Wills: > > > It's a total pain in the ass isn't it? There's no justification for it in my > > opinion. GForth's behaviour is correct. It's just the standard that is bad in > > this regard. It seems that the standard was driven by the ability to use a > > trick (overflow) for boundary detection. Ridiculous. > > What a strange remark. Gforth, like any other Forth I have tested gives the > same result. According to the standard. So an implementation that > reproduces standard behaviour is not standard? > > -- > Coos > > CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications > http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html You misunderstand me. I was pointing out to the OP that Gforth is behaving correctly in accordance with the standard. That the result is a surprise to the OP is the fault of the standard, not GForth :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <fork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-24 20:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xy51ussiwhxjl4@localhost> |
| In reply to | #39243 |
On Sun, 24 May 2015 04:39:25 -0400, Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote: > It's a total pain in the ass isn't it? Yes. Try implementing +LOOP without having overflow, as I did ... Overflow is only available to Forths implemented in assembly. Rod Pemberton -- If fewer guns reduced murders, how does one explain Moscow, Chicago, New York, and South Africa?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-24 18:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a496530b-ff54-41fa-86a2-f4556ad51855@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #39264 |
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 5:48:02 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sun, 24 May 2015 04:39:25 -0400, Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > It's a total pain in the ass isn't it? > > Yes. > > Try implementing +LOOP without having overflow, as I did ... > Overflow is only available to Forths implemented in assembly. That is yet another reason why it is a dumb idea to implement Forth in C. You don't have [carry] in C either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 12:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015May25.143552@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #39264 |
"Rod Pemberton" <fork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> writes:
>Try implementing +LOOP without having overflow, as I did ...
>Overflow is only available to Forths implemented in assembly.
A cleaned-up version of the Gforth source:
(+loop) ( #a_target n R:nlimit R:n1 -- R:nlimit R:n2 ) gforth paren_plus_loop
/* sign bit manipulation and test: (x^y)<0 is equivalent to (x<0) != (y<0) */
/* dependent upon two's complement arithmetic */
Cell olddiff = n1-nlimit;
n2=n1+n;
if (((olddiff^(olddiff+n)) /* the limit is not crossed */
&(olddiff^n)) /* OR it is a wrap-around effect */
>=0) { /* & is used to avoid having two branches for gforth-native */
SET_IP((Xt *)a_target);
}
- 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 2015: http://www.mpeforth.com/euroforth2015/euroforth2015.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <fork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 17:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xy7m722awhxjl4@localhost> |
| In reply to | #39285 |
On Mon, 25 May 2015 08:35:52 -0400, Anton Ertl
<anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> "Rod Pemberton" <fork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> writes:
>> Try implementing +LOOP without having overflow, as I did ...
>> Overflow is only available to Forths implemented in assembly.
>
> A cleaned-up version of the Gforth source:
>
> (+loop) ( #a_target n R:nlimit R:n1 -- R:nlimit R:n2 ) gforth
> paren_plus_loop
> /* sign bit manipulation and test: (x^y)<0 is equivalent to (x<0) !=
> (y<0) */
> /* dependent upon two's complement arithmetic */
> Cell olddiff = n1-nlimit;
> n2=n1+n;
> if (((olddiff^(olddiff+n)) /* the limit is not crossed */
> &(olddiff^n)) /* OR it is a wrap-around effect */
> >=0) { /* & is used to avoid having two branches for gforth-native */
> SET_IP((Xt *)a_target);
> }
"... as I did ..." as in I already implemented it without an
overflow in Forth, not in C. It works, at least in terms of
displaying one more value for one direction. I was going to
post and tell what I did, in case it's wrong, but I just
looked at the code, and can't figure out what it's doing,
anymore ... Sorry, ISTM, the "write once" thing and all,
bit me, for now.
Rod Pemberton
--
If fewer guns reduced murders, how does one explain
Moscow, Chicago, New York, and South Africa?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 18:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mk06th$gtm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39306 |
On 5/25/2015 5:27 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 08:35:52 -0400, Anton Ertl
> <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> "Rod Pemberton" <fork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> writes:
>
>>> Try implementing +LOOP without having overflow, as I did ...
>>> Overflow is only available to Forths implemented in assembly.
>>
>> A cleaned-up version of the Gforth source:
>>
>> (+loop) ( #a_target n R:nlimit R:n1 -- R:nlimit R:n2 ) gforth
>> paren_plus_loop
>> /* sign bit manipulation and test: (x^y)<0 is equivalent to (x<0) !=
>> (y<0) */
>> /* dependent upon two's complement arithmetic */
>> Cell olddiff = n1-nlimit;
>> n2=n1+n;
>> if (((olddiff^(olddiff+n)) /* the limit is not crossed */
>> &(olddiff^n)) /* OR it is a wrap-around effect */
>> >=0) { /* & is used to avoid having two branches for gforth-native */
>> SET_IP((Xt *)a_target);
>> }
>
> "... as I did ..." as in I already implemented it without an
> overflow in Forth, not in C. It works, at least in terms of
> displaying one more value for one direction. I was going to
> post and tell what I did, in case it's wrong, but I just
> looked at the code, and can't figure out what it's doing,
> anymore ... Sorry, ISTM, the "write once" thing and all,
> bit me, for now.
It's kinda funny to me actually. I had to code overflow and carry in
VHDL for the hardware of a soft CPU. If you don't have hardware already
to provide these flags, they are not trivial to detect. I seem to
recall it involves comparing the MSBs of the inputs and output of an
addition. Once you figure it out it shouldn't be a lot of logic, but
coming up with the algorithm takes a little work.
--
Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 16:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9244ea2d-8c70-400e-94e9-bd58f358ed8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #39307 |
Here is what I came up with. Tested. http://github.com/chitselb/pettil
name=(LOOP)
ploop
lda #1
ldy #0
jsr push6502
; fall through
name=(+LOOP)
pploop
clc
lda tos
sta n
adc zi
sta zi
lda tos+1
adc zi+1
sta zi+1
jsr slide
clc
lda zlim
sbc zi
lda zlim+1
sbc zi+1
eor n
and #$80
beq branch
ploop02
pla ; unnest outer loop from return stack
sta zi
pla
sta zi+1
pla
sta zlim
pla
sta zlim+1
jmp bump ; skip branch offset byte, NEXT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 17:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b2414ba-09c3-4702-a468-87ea7ad18275@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #39308 |
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 7:17:35 PM UTC-4, chitselb wrote:
> Here is what I came up with. Tested. http://github.com/chitselb/pettil
>
> name=(LOOP)
> ploop
> lda #1
> ldy #0
> jsr push6502
> ; fall through
>
> name=(+LOOP)
> pploop
> clc
> lda tos
> sta n
> adc zi
> sta zi
> lda tos+1
> adc zi+1
> sta zi+1
> jsr slide
>
> clc
> lda zlim
> sbc zi
> lda zlim+1
> sbc zi+1
> eor n
> and #$80
> beq branch
> ploop02
> pla ; unnest outer loop from return stack
> sta zi
> pla
> sta zi+1
> pla
> sta zlim
> pla
> sta zlim+1
> jmp bump ; skip branch offset byte, NEXT
wups that was an expensive change to ploop. fixed:
ploop
lsr n ; sign of step is positive
inc zi
bne pploop01
inc zi+1
jmp pploop01
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 17:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3eb88fd-b7c8-4eb8-8459-c82dab15f81d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #39309 |
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 5:16:40 PM UTC-7, chitselb wrote: > On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 7:17:35 PM UTC-4, chitselb wrote: > ... > wups that was an expensive change to ploop. fixed: > > ploop > lsr n ; sign of step is positive > inc zi > bne pploop01 > inc zi+1 > jmp pploop01 By expensive, you must mean in the sense of execution speed, right? It's not clear where your pploop01 label is, but am I correct in assuming that it's directly after your jsr slide? Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chitselb <chitselb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 18:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <320372c2-9bbd-48e2-a2c2-d2b9008ebc93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #39312 |
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 8:50:45 PM UTC-4, Michael Barry wrote: > On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 5:16:40 PM UTC-7, chitselb wrote: > > On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 7:17:35 PM UTC-4, chitselb wrote: > > ... > > wups that was an expensive change to ploop. fixed: > > > > ploop > > lsr n ; sign of step is positive > > inc zi > > bne pploop01 > > inc zi+1 > > jmp pploop01 > > By expensive, you must mean in the sense of execution speed, > right? > It's not clear where your pploop01 label is, but am I correct > in assuming that it's directly after your jsr slide? > > Mike Yes, expensive in execution speed. Yes, the pploop01 label goes between the 'jsr slide' and 'clc' instructions But then I noticed that this doesn't work anymore : FOO 0. DO LOOP ; (only iterates once, not 65536 times) So I made (LOOP) increment by 1 and treat the index/limit as unsigned values, while +LOOP increments by `tos` and treats index/limit as signed values. In other words, if you want to iterate more than 32K times, use LOOP and step by 1. Otherwise use +LOOP and signed values will behave as expected per the ANSI and Forth-83 standards. It's one of those ugly design decisions that will probably wake me up screaming in the middle of the night. I documented this strangeness in the wiki http://chitselb.com/files/tiddlypettil.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web