Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #43993

Re: POSTPONE behaviour

Show all headers | View raw

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 5:18:48 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote:
> On 30/11/2015 05:48, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> > My MFX didn't involve writing my own outer-interpreter --- I used the
> > built-in outer-interpreter. The problem with this technique is that
> > numbers don't work because ?NUMBER isn't vectored and it can't be
> > rewritten to cross-compile numbers rather than do what it normally
> > does with numbers. Because of this MFX required the user to write
> > code like this:
> >
> > : test [ 123 ] literal ;
> >
> 
> Yes that's exactly what I did, not nice but usable. Of course if 
> recognisers are introduced into the Forth 20XX standard that problem 
> will disappear.

If ANS-Forth doesn't allow numbers to be used in colon words in a cross-compiler, then ANS-Forth doesn't allow cross-compilers. Duh!

What I had in MFX (that you snipped from my message) was this:

: test [ 123 ]L ;

This resulted in less bloated source-code than this:

: test [ 123 ] literal ;

Either way it is ugly though --- this is not really Forth code at all.

I got away with that ugly solution at Testra in my MFX because those guys were very focused on getting their motion-control program to work and they were willing to use ugly hacks such as this. Also, they used CONSTANT for most constant values, rather than put magic numbers in colon words as literals, so the issue didn't come up very much. I would not consider this to be adequate quality to be made public however. Imagine explaining that to a customer --- you would look like an incompetent clown. You were dreaming when you said that you wrote a cross-compiler in ANS-Forth --- and you will wake up abruptly when your customer sees your ugly hack and says: "You call this a cross-compiler? I want my money back!"

> I'm not going to defend FIND, as I pointed out recently in another 
> discussion SEARCH-WORDLIST isn't crippled like FIND. FIND should be 
> removed from the standard. There are several aspects of ANS Forth I 
> dislike, mostly due to having to accomodate legacy systems and to stick 
> to Forth traditions. I actually agree with you on several of these issues.

We are discussing ANS-Forth, not Forth-200x --- you are dodging the issue when you use Forth-200x words such as SEARCH-WORDLIST to support your claim that ANS-Forth is capable of being used to write a cross-compiler.
 
> > --- if you think that you can defend
> > this as being a "feature" then you are going to fail --- this is
> > not a feature; this is blatant sabotage.. FIND and tick always
> > worked prior to the ANS-Forth standard --- only ANS-Forth allows
> > them to not work. Also, ?NUMBER should have been defined, and it
> > should have been defined as being vectored so the outer-interpreter
> > could be used but ?NUMBER used by the outer-interpreter changed
> > to cross-compile.
> 
> As above, recognizers will remove that problem.

Actually, I don't think that either a vectored NUMBER? (in VFX it is called NUMBER? rather than ?NUMBER and it is vectored) or recognizers will remove that problem. NUMBER? and recognizers just recognize the number and return it, but the number is still getting compiled into the wrong place by the outer-interpreter. What is needed is for LITERAL and COMPILE, to be vectored because they do the compiling (of numbers and xts respectively) --- this way the built-in outer-interpreter (that uses LITERAL and COMPILE, internally) can be used in the cross-compiler.

If the built-in outer-interpreter can't be used in a cross-compiler, then the obvious solution is for the cross-compiler to have its own custom outer-interpreter that uses its own LITERAL and COMPILE, that are vectored. For this to work however, FIND has to work. Anton Ertl has repeatedly and stridently stated that it is legal ANS-Forth to have FIND fail on over 50 of the words in the standard (such as IF etc.), and that gForth is fully ANS-Forth although FIND and tick don't work.

This is why I say that ANS-Forth was sabotaged to prevent cross-compilers from being written in ANS-Forth. There is no good reason for FIND and tick to not work --- this is blatant sabotage.

My disambiguifiers undo the sabotage however! If you use my disambiguifiers, FIND and tick will start working correctly (on any ANS-Forth system), including ANS-Forth systems such as VFX and gForth on which FIND and tick were sabotaged to not work correctly.

Rewrite your cross-compiler to use my disambiguifiers and to use a custom outer-interpreter rather than the built-in outer-interpreter. If you do this, you can get rid of that ugly hack that you described earlier. Finally you will have an actual cross-compiler written in ANS-Forth --- you won't have to fake it anymore.

> > BTW: Since when do you take recourse in sarcasm? Are you turning
> > into a troll now?
> 
> No I hope not. I apologise and shouldn't do it but couldn't resist it in 
> this case. You shouldn't keep on about ANS Forth being sabotaged etc so 
> that it can't be used for cross-compilers when I know it can.

I will accept your apology. I got pretty tired of Passaniti and later Alex McDonald talking to me like that; I wouldn't want you to start.

BTW: I've noticed that Alex McDonald has disappeared. I'm not complaining of course; I'm glad to see the last of him. Elizabeth Rather had Passaniti as her little attack poodle and she praised him to the sky as a Forth programmer, but then Passaniti left. Bernd Paysan had Alex McDonald has his little attack poodle and he praised him to the sky as a Forth programmer (he even let Alex write the RfD for the fake quotations, although it was his "assignment" and he wrote the code), but then Alex left. The Forth-200x committee rely heavily on attack poodles to bite at my ankles and keep me away, but they can't maintain the loyalty of their attack poodles --- maybe they should pay more.

> > I think that it is obvious that ANS-Forth was sabotaged to prevent
> > cross-compilers from being written in portable ANS-Forth code
> 
> It's not obvious to me. According to the ANS Forth standard document 
> there were 22 people from different organisations listed as being 
> members of the Technical Committee developing the standard. In addition 
> there are 31 individuals listed as contributing. It is beyond belief 
> that they all, or even a mojority, got together and said something like 
> "right guys, how are we going to sabotage this standard so that none of 
> us can write a cross compiler or write portable programs"
> . Also when do more than a few Forth people ever agree on anything 
> without a lot of much compromises - hence the number of ambiguous 
> conditions?

Elizabeth Rather is a name-dropper. Examples that I've mentioned before are her claims that she hob-nobs with multiple Nobel Peace Prize winners and hob-nobs with Barrack Obama's family in Hawaii. She habitually claims to have support from people who don't actually support her. She lists Charles Moore and Ray Duncan as supporters of ANS-Forth in the ANS-Forth document --- they don't support ANS-Forth --- I suspect that none of the people listed in the ANS-Forth document as supporters actually support ANS-Forth.

Elizabeth Rather is a name-dropper and a pathological liar --- anybody who believes anything that she says is making a fool out of himself --- the reason why I describe ANS-Forth as a cult is that her followers turn a blind eye to all of their leader's obvious lies, which is the hallmark of a cult (this is called: "drinking the kool-aid").

>  > --- the ANS-Forth document goes out of its way to prevent this ---
>  > some ANS-Forth systems do work around this sabotage however, and you 
>  > presumably used one of them.
>  >
> 
> No I didn't work around it, I used similar techniques to those described 
> in the paper at www.nimblemachines.com/-/XCpaper.pdf. It's called 
> designing a cross compiler not working around ANS Forth shortcomings. (I 
> predict you'll hate that paper)

You obviously did work around the problem of ANS-Forth not supporting cross-compilers that have numbers in colon words --- that is why you don't have numbers in your colon words --- you used the same ugly hack in your cross-compiler that I used in MFX to work around the problem in the Forth standards (ANS-Forth for you and Forth-83 for me).

I won't hate that paper because I won't read it. I've never read anything about Forth cross-compilation and I have no intention of ever doing so --- I figure everything out for myself --- I don't think anybody can teach me anything about Forth.

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

POSTPONE behaviour Aliaksei Chapyzhenka <alex.drom@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 21:18 -0800
  Re: POSTPONE behaviour Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 22:00 -0800
    Re: POSTPONE behaviour Aliaksei Chapyzhenka <alex.drom@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 22:15 -0800
      Re: POSTPONE behaviour Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 22:54 -0800
        Re: POSTPONE behaviour Aliaksei Chapyzhenka <alex.drom@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 23:09 -0800
        Re: POSTPONE behaviour Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-25 08:15 +0100
          Re: POSTPONE behaviour Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 23:38 -0800
            Re: POSTPONE behaviour Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-25 08:46 +0100
              Re: POSTPONE behaviour Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 00:04 -0800
            Re: POSTPONE behaviour rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 03:01 -0500
              Re: POSTPONE behaviour Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 00:09 -0800
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 03:23 -0500
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 01:09 -0800
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 10:49 -0500
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-25 09:10 -1000
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-25 09:18 +0000
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 02:21 -0800
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 02:47 -0800
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-25 13:58 +0000
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 06:35 -0800
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-25 18:45 +0100
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 22:11 -0800
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-26 07:42 +0000
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-11-26 05:20 -0500
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-26 16:50 +0000
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-26 17:59 +0000
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-27 19:07 +0100
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-28 11:24 +0000
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-26 12:29 -0800
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-27 09:53 +0000
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-29 21:48 -0800
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-30 12:18 +0000
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-30 13:41 +0100
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-30 19:56 -0800
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-12-01 09:59 +0000
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-12-01 22:46 -0800
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-12-02 07:50 +0000
              Re: POSTPONE behaviour anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-25 13:45 +0000
                Re: POSTPONE behaviour rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 10:54 -0500
        Re: POSTPONE behaviour Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-25 07:39 +0000
          Re: POSTPONE behaviour Aliaksei Chapyzhenka <alex.drom@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 23:48 -0800
            Re: POSTPONE behaviour Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-25 08:03 +0000
    Re: POSTPONE behaviour Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-25 18:37 +0100
  Re: POSTPONE behaviour "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-11-25 01:27 -0500
    Re: POSTPONE behaviour Aliaksei Chapyzhenka <alex.drom@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 22:51 -0800
  Re: POSTPONE behaviour Aliaksei Chapyzhenka <alex.drom@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 21:19 -0800

csiph-web