Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM

From	Alex <alex@rivadpm.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM
Date	2017-05-19 12:40 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<ofmlcd$kj1$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <810b8769-5f5f-44b5-a755-c3fb04fa2541@googlegroups.com> <ofk8mn$dbn$1@dont-email.me> <b0df9242-7930-41c3-bfcf-3d50de546fdf@googlegroups.com> <ofkv6a$ua1$1@dont-email.me> <ad035ad4-09be-4f30-876a-f210064ee2da@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/19/2017 03:49, Joel Rees wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 5:15:18 AM UTC+9, Alex wrote:
>> On 5/18/2017 17:18, Joel Rees wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 10:51:31 PM UTC+9, Alex wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/2017 13:15, Joel Rees wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 6:51:46 PM UTC+9, Alex wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/18/2017 03:17, Joel Rees wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 4:41:30 AM UTC+9, Alex
>>>>>>> wrote:

>> 
>>> 
>>> An optimizing Forth compiler does flatten leaf calls, and that
>>> looks like substitution (and is), but the paradigm is a call
>>> paradigm, not a substitution paradigm.
>>> 
>>> Otherwise, we'd have no need for the inner interpreter, and our 
>>> program objects would lose their compactness.
>> 
>> I get "is a call paradigm, not a substitution paradigm" but beyond
>> that you've lost me again.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Are you familiar with an inner interpreter? Not just the concept,
> but an actual inner interpreter?

Yes. Forgive me, I'm beginning to think you might not be.

> 
> Are you familiar with the Forth symbol table?

You mean dictionary. I see a pattern of using terms from other religions 
that might cause confusion here.

> 
> Are you familiar with the concept of an i-code (as we used to call 
> them before the Java community implicitly made byte-code an improper 
> synonym for i-code)?

No. P-code, but not i-code. I've never heard of it.

> 
>>>>>>> Forth words aren't text macros, and they aren't in-line 
>>>>>>> machine/assembly code macros. (And they aren't, for
>>>>>>> example, CAD macros. >
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "text macro"
>>>>> 
>>>>> What is text? What is substitution?
>>>>> 
>>>>> What is macro substitution?
>>>>> 
>>>>> What is the language m4?
>>>>> 
>>>>> What is a C preprocessor?
>>>> 
>>>> Great questions. What problem are you addressing that Forth
>>>> not having "text macros" is an issue? You might want to
>>>> consider my first answer above on interpreting/compiling.
>>> 
>>> Who said I was addressing a problem.
>>> 
>>> Someone said Forth could be called a macro factory or something
>>> like that, and I thought it worth the trouble to try to point out
>>> that routine call and code substitution are two rather different 
>>> approaches to interpreting the symbols of a program language.
>> 
>> Again, I don't know what you mean here. An example might help.
> 
> Here's something from a project I've been spinning my wheels on:
> 
> ----------------- ( This probably isn't really a good idea. Much
> better to just implement UMD* in assembler. ) ( AL AH B --- QL QML
> QMH : unsigned double by unsigned single yielding three-cell unsigned
> ) : UDS* ( ud u --- uhq ) DUP >R SWAP >R ( AL B ) UM* 0 ( ready to
> sum into ) R> R> ( AH B ) UM* D+ ; -----------------
> 
> The above is not a macro.

Thank you, yes, I can see that.

> 
> Now, if you consider the time domain to be a medium, and semantics
> to be symbols, then we can say we don't need to make a distinction.
> 
> And semantics are, in fact, symbolic.
> 
> And the time domain is, in fact, a medium for writing behavior into.
> 
> For us mortals, it helps to make a distinction between symbolic 
> behavior and non-symbolic behavior. Otherwise, we don't know when to
> stop talking and start doing.
> 
> I'm sure that doesn't help. 

How true. Gnosticism was never my bag.

> Back to the example I just gave you.
> 
> That's a list of instructions.
> 
> Conceptually, a Forth compiler is going to string that together as a
> series of calls to code.
> 
> Many modern Forths can in-line that, but let's set that aside for a
> moment. In-lining is not a fundamental characteristic of Forth
> interpreters. It's a relatively advanced mode of operation.

It's not advanced. It's also not relevant to the discussion.

> 
>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> : generate-mov-eax-1 also assembler mov eax 1 previous ;
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- Alex
>>>>> 
>>>>> And that looks something like an assembler macro.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But that is not a typical Forth word, either.
>>>> 
>>>> What's typical? (This is a serious question, since I can't see
>>>> the point you're trying to make here at all.)
>>> 
>>> Well, I don't imagine that a typical application written in Forth
>>> has a lot of words which directly invoke the assembler for the
>>> target CPU, at any rate.
>>> 
>>> Maybe I'm wrong and the target CPU is one of the reasons a lot
>>> of Forth Applications are not portable.
>> 
>> It was an example of your case of "inline assembley macro", hence
>> it used assembler (which is usually not portable). It doesn't
>> indicate a fundamental lack of portability in Forth.
> 
> If this is to be used in assembly level source code, it would be an 
> example of a macro that you have defined in your Forth.
> 
> Elsewhere, it might be more descriptive to call it an in-line call.

No, it isn't an in-line call.

> 
> It is fundamentally different from the example I presented above.

To the Forth system, it's identical.

> 
> (Unless your Forth is really aggressive about in-lining, but let's 
> not get distracted yet.)
> 
> (Oh, and unless you like to consider time as paper to write on, but 
> let's ignore that question entirely.)

I think you're slightly off as to what Forth does with words (& let's 
ignore numbers for the moment).

Forth (the outer interpreter) makes no distinction about what it does 
when it sees a word (or token if you prefer). It looks the word up in a 
dictionary (a type of symbol table) and if it finds it, gets back two 
pieces of information; an execution token (XT) and an immediate flag.

It does one of two things, based on a state variable and the immediate flag.

If the state is "interpretation state" or the immediate flag is true, it 
executes the XT immediately.

Otherwise, it compiles a call to the XT. What is meant by compilation is 
part of the nature of the Forth; ITC, DTC, STC or a native code system 
do different things. At root, they build something that can be executed.

That's it. There's no semantic interpretation of the XT by the outer 
interpreter.

The inner interpreter (it's badly named tbf) runs through the compiled 
code and "executes" it. Threaded systems use fairly simple (and 
hopefully fast) mechanisms; native code systems use call/return or 
inlining, or a mixture of the two, where the inner interpreter has 
become like Banquo's ghost in Hamlet; it's annoyingly present as an idea 
but it doesn't exist.

Again, that's it.

> 
>>>>> Some people note that function or subroutine calls behave in
>>>>> a way similar to macro invocation, but there are fundamental 
>>>>> differences. Most prominently, Forth words write their 
>>>>> substitutions to the time domain instead of into a file
>>>>> stream.
>>>> 
>>>> You've lost me completely now.
>>> 
>>> Do my comments about flattening leaf calls help?
>> 
>> I'm sorry, no. Quite the reverse.
>> 
>> -- Alex
> 
> In the example I gave above, pretty much every symbol that appeared 
> in my definition of the word "UDS*" is probably a leaf. That is, the 
> characteristic of each symbol is machine code.

Leaf implies some kind of tree structure. The definition of UDS* ends up 
as is either (a) an array of XTs of other definitions (that's compiled 
code in a threaded system) or a chunk of code (in a native code 
compiler). We could talk about leaves, or trees, or other concepts, but 
we generally don't do so.

> 
> And aggressively optimizing Forth compiler (with a properly designed 
> run-time) may "flatten" each symbol in that definition into in-line 
> instantiation of the code that characterizes the symbol >
> DUP, for instance, is likely a read from top of stack into a
> temporary register and an allocating write back to the stack. That's
> one to three machine language instructions. >
> Flattening, or in-lining, the code is very similar to what macros
> do. We would not lose meaning by calling it macro-substitution,
> although we usually call it in-lining or flattening.

Flattening? Neither it nor inlining has anything to do with what I was 
trying to demonstrate with the example, and I'm sorry if it has only 
served to confuse you.

> 
> If the code is not in-lined, we would call it an i-code (or even
> just function) call to code stored elsewhere. This is only "macro" if
> we are considering the time domain as a medium to write into.
> 
> It is not meaningless to consider a function call as a temporal 
> substitution of semantic for symbol, but usually we make a
> distinction.
> 
> The reason for the distinction is in the (minimal in the case of 
> Forth) time consumed by the call, and in the amount of storage saved
> when the code doesn't have to be repeated everywhere it is referred
> to.
> 
> This is the distinction I'm making.

You need to get the Forth basics first. There's a lot of confusion here, 
especially with ideas and terminology. Perhaps my example wasn't the 
best for this kind of discussion.

> 
> You may wonder why I acknowledge CAD macros. That is explicitly 
> temporal domain stuff.
> 
> Lisp is mathematics, and implicitly temporal. It straddles the 
> boundary line I am pointing out in much the same manner as Forth 
> does, but the focus is on the symbols.
> 
> In the Forth community, we are more focused on the semantics than on
> the symbols. We lose something when we forget that.

We? OK, since it's philosophy week here on clf, let me have a go. This 
is, as is usual on the intertubes, my humble opinion etc. The we is me.

Forthers (I count myself as one) are at heart reductionists. Simplicity 
is valued above all else, and the ability to reduce to the elements of 
programming considered one of the key aspects of the language; and one 
of the key attributes of Forth programs (and programmers).

Forthers are perpetually surprised with systems and constructs (and the 
people that propose them) that are to be treated holistically, trusted, 
praised and almost worshipped, and never analysed or decomposed into 
parts. Much of the terminology of programming in the temple of High 
Level Languages -- templates; macros; objects; currying; lambdas; a 
whole bestiary of ideas -- are treated as byzantine gnosticism layered 
on what is just a simple substrate.

We exist not to admire other's creations, or to paint descriptions of 
how to employ them, or to write poetry on the internet about them. These 
are the actions of worshippers to false gods and idols. (We don't even 
treat the first prophets of our religion that well either.)

We want to use our tools and atom smashers and say -- look, it's just 
stuff. This is all that it is. Neutrons, protons, that make up the 
screws, brackets, wires. Here are the simple parts that have been used 
to assemble your creation.

Macros? Ah, you classify them differently, because in your language your 
symbols write their substitutions into a file stream as opposed to the 
time domain. That's high-church impenetrable priesthood stuff, good for 
talking about C. But I wonder, what do they look like when I hit them 
with my Forth hammer?

Anyhow. As you said earlier, I'm sure this doesn't help. Back to the 
discussion.

-- 
Alex

Thread

comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-23 02:17 -0500
  Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 00:27 -0700
  Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-23 11:50 +0000
  Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-03-23 12:34 -0500
    Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 10:56 -0700
  Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM mentificium@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 05:25 -0700
    Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 19:23 -0400
    Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 10:54 +0100
      Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM mentificium@gmail.com - 2017-05-04 05:28 -0700
  Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Dennis Ruffer <daruffer@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 17:46 -0700
    Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 18:49 -0700
    Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-03-24 22:09 -0500
      Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 20:47 -0700
  Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-03-25 10:49 -0700
  Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 12:39 -0700
    Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 02:07 -0700
      Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-10 11:23 +0200
      Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-05-10 16:29 -1000
        Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-11 13:39 -0700
          Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-11 16:01 -0500
            Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-05-11 21:41 -1000
              Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-05-12 03:18 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-12 19:12 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 19:15 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 12:01 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-05-16 17:59 -0400
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 16:57 -0400
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-05-26 02:28 -0700
              Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 17:44 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-05-13 00:21 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 12:15 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-05-13 00:30 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-13 04:43 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-13 12:51 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-13 08:47 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-13 09:57 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-13 18:26 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-13 10:59 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 12:36 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-05-14 00:33 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-14 12:04 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-05-14 11:45 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-14 12:02 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-14 14:22 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-05-14 23:08 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-14 14:12 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-14 12:25 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-14 14:48 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-05-15 00:24 -0400
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-15 00:14 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-15 00:17 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-15 00:30 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 09:54 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 02:27 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-05-15 00:24 -0400
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 09:53 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andreas Klimas <klimas@w3group.de> - 2017-05-15 16:31 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 11:43 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 15:47 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 20:06 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 12:05 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-16 15:00 +0000
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 10:52 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-16 19:33 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-16 21:11 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-16 21:25 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-17 07:48 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 10:50 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-17 19:27 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 11:42 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-17 20:22 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 12:57 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 13:01 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-18 13:01 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-18 14:09 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 07:00 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 22:15 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 22:21 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-18 08:04 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 23:10 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-18 08:19 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 23:29 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-18 08:44 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 01:13 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-18 10:02 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 01:29 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-18 11:34 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 03:56 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-18 09:44 +0000
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-18 09:42 +0000
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 03:59 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-18 13:01 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 08:26 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-18 09:37 +0000
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-18 08:16 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-18 11:04 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 19:41 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-16 21:05 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 11:21 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 20:32 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 19:35 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 11:06 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-17 19:30 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 12:02 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-17 20:41 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 19:17 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 20:58 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-18 10:46 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-18 08:43 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-18 16:00 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-20 01:47 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-20 13:03 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-20 17:51 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-21 07:51 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-21 00:11 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-21 17:46 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-21 10:34 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-21 20:57 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-18 04:08 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-18 10:51 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 05:15 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-18 14:51 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 09:18 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-18 21:15 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 19:49 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-19 07:10 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-19 07:42 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 09:59 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 18:48 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-19 12:40 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 20:57 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-20 03:42 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 02:00 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-20 10:15 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-20 13:34 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-20 02:01 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-20 13:18 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-05-19 17:06 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 08:31 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-19 17:02 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 09:18 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 09:34 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andreas Klimas <klimas@w3group.de> - 2017-05-18 16:40 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-18 08:12 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 02:30 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 18:57 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 14:01 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-05-21 19:55 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 11:57 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 12:41 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:02 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-21 14:43 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 16:32 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-21 18:46 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-22 07:05 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:45 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-23 22:02 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 01:00 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-24 14:07 +0100
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 22:14 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-05-16 18:48 -1000
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-21 15:06 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 12:16 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 12:18 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 11:58 -0700
            Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 03:32 -0700
              Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-12 19:29 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:25 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-13 13:25 -0500
              Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2017-05-15 05:45 +0000
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 06:54 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andreas Klimas <klimas@w3group.de> - 2017-05-15 16:30 +0200
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 00:32 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 19:25 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 21:15 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 21:34 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 08:39 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 12:38 -0700
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-15 17:32 -0500
                Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andreas Klimas <klimas@w3group.de> - 2017-05-16 10:06 +0200
          Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 11:51 -0700
        Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 11:50 -0700
      Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 11:47 -0700
  Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Bill Zimmerly <billzimmerly@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 20:59 -0700

csiph-web