Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior

From	rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: unexpected +LOOP behavior
Date	2015-05-25 01:41 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<mjucjs$k0p$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<80773739-ddd7-4a06-9200-9d7145d0f492@googlegroups.com> <763a0671-2f81-4a26-aa7b-99aa856cfdcb@googlegroups.com> <5561b9b6$0$2868$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <mjsnid$99v$2@dont-email.me> <55623fa0$0$2821$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/24/2015 5:16 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> rickman wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2015 7:44 AM, Hans Bezemer wrote:
>>>
>>> Forth-83 added lots of horrible, "clever" tricks that made the language
>>> almost unusable. "All bits set" for TRUE was another one. Really, it's no
>>> wonder Forth went through the drain in the late 80-ies.
>>
>> What is wrong with using -1 for a logic TRUE?
> Ok, here we go again:
>
> Another nice topic for a flame war is the value of truth. In
> ANS-Forth the 'TRUE' has the value "-1", which means all bits are
> set. Which is very clever. You can 'XOR', 'OR', 'AND' and
> 'INVERT' it with any other value and it will behave as logical
> value. But "the all bits set" flag has its drawbacks too. Let's
> see what the ANS-Forth standard says about flags:
>
> "A FALSE flag is a single-cell datum with all bits unset, and a
> TRUE flag is a single-cell datum with all bits set. While Forth
> words which test flags accept any non-null bit pattern as true,
> there exists the concept of the well-formed flag. If an operation
> whose result is to be used as a flag may produce any bit-mask
> other than TRUE or FALSE, the recommended discipline is to
> convert the result to a well-formed flag by means of the Forth
> word 0<> so that the result of any subsequent logical operations
> on the flag will be predictable. In addition to the words which
> move, fetch and store single-cell items, the following words are
> valid for operations on one or more flag data residing on the
> data stack: AND OR XOR INVERT"
>
> We highly recommend the discipline of converting a non-zero value
> to a well-formed flag. But we don't understand why 'INVERT' is a
> valid way to manipulate a flag. We'll try to explain you why.
>
> Forth traditionally has no specific logical operators. Instead,
> binary operators were used. This put 'INVERT' (or 'NOT' as it was
> called in Forth-79) in a difficult position. 'INVERT'ing any
> non-zero value will result in a non-zero value, except when all
> bits are set.
>
> That is why '0=' was introduced, a full-fledged logical operator.
> So why use 'INVERT' when you want to perform a logical operation?
> Another quote:
>
> "Since a "char" can store small positive numbers and since the
> character data type is a sub-range of the unsigned integer data
> type, C! must store the n least-significant bits of a cell (8 <=
> n <= bits/cell). Given the enumeration of allowed number
> representations and their known encodings, "TRUE xx C! xx C@"
> must leave a stack item with some number of bits set, which will
> thus will be accepted as non-zero by IF."
>
> This is another problem of using "all bits set" as a true flag:
> you store a well formed flag in an address unit that should
> easily be able to handle it and you'll never get it back. A flag
> is a boolean and can have two values: either true or false. The
> smallest unit that can hold a boolean is a bit. ANS-Forth
> programmers are denied that privilege.
>
> But why are some Forth programmers so keen on their “all bits set”
>   flag? Well, you can do neat things with it.
>
> : >CHAR DUP 9 > 7 AND + ASCII 0 + ;
>
> This will convert a digit to its ASCII representation. True, it
> is a clever piece of programming, but in our opinion it is bad
> style. Why? Because you are using a flag as a bitmask, which is a
> completely different datatype. Although there is no such thing as
> “data typing” in Forth, this way of programming makes it
> difficult to understand and maintain a program, which the
> ANS-Forth standard acknowledges:
>
> "The discipline of circumscribing meaning which a program may
> assign to various combinations of bit patterns is sometimes
> called data typing. Many computer languages impose explicit data
> typing and have compilers that prevent ill-defined operations.
> Forth rarely explicitly imposes data-type restrictions. Still,
> data types implicitly do exist, and discipline is required,
> particularly if portability of programs is a goal. In Forth, it
> is incumbent upon the programmer (rather than the compiler) to
> determine that data are accurately typed."
>
> That is why 4tH uses "1" as a true flag. Usually, it won't make
> much difference. Except when you use 'INVERT' to invert a flag or
> intend to make obfuscated programs. If you use '0=' instead, you
> won't run in any trouble, not even when you port your program to
> ANS-Forth. Clarity may introduce a little overhead, but in this
> age of multi-gigaherz machines, who is counting?

Have you ever seen the futuristic space show "Red Dwarf"?  One character 
is a person playing the descendent of a cat.  In a scene some large 
fiery space object is hurtling toward them and the cat asks, "What is 
it?"  One character explains the physical makeup and the cat turns to 
another character and asks, "What is it?"  This person explains that it 
is the remnant of something with a simpler description and the cat turns 
to a third character and asks, "What is it?"  This final character says 
it is a big fiery ball of death headed straight for them!  The cat 
understand this...

So... What is wrong with using -1 for a logic TRUE?

I think you describe three problems.  The first I don't get because you 
say there are no logical operators, but 0= seems to be exactly that.  I 
don't see the problem.

The second problem is that storing a flag in something smaller than a 
cell will not return the flag exactly.  Yes...  duh!  Again, I don't see 
the problem.

The third problem  seems to revolve around not the actual value of the 
flag, but the fact that programmers rely on the value of the flag in 
operations.  How is that the fault of the definition of flag.  If you 
define a true flag as the value 1 and a false flag as 0, then 
programmers will do things like adding the flag to an integer.  Still a 
problem according to you and not fixed.  Or do I misunderstand your 
writing and a true is the character "1" and false the character "0"?

-- 

Rick

Thread

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

csiph-web