00:00:00 --- log: started forth/02.02.20 01:51:33 --- join: Fare (fare@samaris.tunes.org) joined #forth 03:17:23 --- quit: Fare ("Connection reset by pear") 05:31:51 --- join: Speuler (~l@a161161.upc-a.chello.nl) joined #forth 05:31:56 good morning 05:43:25 --- part: Speuler left #forth 06:29:20 --- join: MrReach (~mrreach@209.181.43.190) joined #forth 08:26:30 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust84.tnt3.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth 08:26:31 --- mode: ChanServ set +o I440r 08:26:33 Hihi! 08:27:17 mrreach hehe 08:27:19 hey there 08:27:21 are you ok now ??? :) 08:27:41 and to answer the question you asked right before i disconnected and disappeared last time 08:27:41 yes 08:27:53 ive been coding like a mad man :) 08:27:53 im putting fload in now 08:27:54 huh? 08:28:04 what the hell are you talking about? 08:28:05 seperate headers is working 08:28:05 compile works 08:28:19 i added pictured number output and number input 08:28:20 cool 08:30:16 oh, regarding my icq messages 08:30:26 erm ... WAY lagged 08:30:30 hehe yes - i think im in a deep lag pocket 08:31:37 ok, getting better 08:31:57 im doing an apt-get update 08:32:04 oh, ok 08:32:27 I'm learning how to prioritize processes and threads in Win32 08:33:04 have u been working on an assembler for me ???? (hint hint :) 08:33:11 i doubt i could write an assembler 08:33:25 heh, you kidding? yoiu see me bitching about x86 instruction sets yet? 08:33:44 and you know I *WILL* be bitching when the time comes 08:34:01 i wrote a 8051 disassembler and that is realy easy - but i doubt i could do an 8051 assember either heh 08:34:01 no have u been ?? :) 08:34:27 heh, not to date 08:35:37 i bitch at x86 all the time 08:36:06 segmented memory is an abomination i wouldnt have thought they could make worse 08:36:18 then they invented protected mode 08:36:19 ugh 08:36:41 pmode - a complete fuckup of a very bad design desision 08:36:46 * MrReach grins, "Good thing most OSs simply ignore it" 08:36:54 heh 08:37:07 demo writers love it :P 08:37:09 segmentation, that is 08:37:20 yes 08:37:42 but pmode is like totally fucked up heh 08:37:56 the natural state of a processor isnt one it has to switch into for a start 08:38:05 the bios are never written in pmode 08:38:15 actually, I think Intel did a pretty good job, considering the challenges of building a 32 bit chip that still executed the existing 16bit code w/o modification 08:38:30 so if you want pmode u gotta do all kinds of shit 08:38:36 yes - i gotta hand THAT to them 08:38:49 16bit segmented code, at that 08:38:55 instead of dumpiong a fucked up design - they built on it :P 08:39:36 so how long do you think it will take youto write the assembler now ? 08:39:37 I really wish IBM had chosen the MC68000 for the PC 08:39:40 me too 08:39:42 !!!! 08:40:05 when I start, about 6 weeks 08:40:17 k 08:40:19 think I said that once 08:40:35 yes but i wanna make sure you still think the same hhe 08:40:47 I like your idea ... 08:40:55 which idea ? 08:41:04 of making colon a looping word, similar to Pygmy 08:41:20 its neater 08:41:45 u mean interpret/compile in the same loop ? 08:42:02 yes, and that leaves the possibility that EXIT in a source file can leave the remainder of the file for comment/docs 08:42:30 erm maybe 08:42:38 I440r: last I heard, the interpreter and compiler were going to be seperate loops 08:42:39 fload doesnt use expect/query/key 08:42:49 hell no! 08:42:54 thats what i dont like 08:43:03 having interpret as one loop and ] as a compiler 08:43:08 thats fucked in the head heh 08:43:14 oh, so you're going to use an F83 style compiler? 08:43:17 : [ state on ; 08:43:21 : ] state off ; 08:43:33 ok ok, don't have a cow 08:43:37 f83 used ] as the cimpiler heh 08:43:41 im not having a cow hehe 08:43:42 one is about as good as the other 08:44:00 i think not - it confuses the issue alot 08:44:19 tho i have made one mistake that i might have to rethink later 08:44:21 only if you're used to one way, and then stumble across the other 08:44:36 which mistake is that? 08:44:40 well. 08:44:46 when you call interpret it calls query 08:44:53 query does a bl word 08:45:06 word looks to see if tib is empty and refills it if it is 08:45:22 it was a neat idea but it didnt take fload into account 08:45:52 look at the word REFILL 08:46:16 ive looked at how other forths do it :) 08:46:25 it is used to fill the tib regardless of what the input source happens to be 08:46:26 quite alot and i think they are all clumsey 08:46:51 my solution was realy simple - made the whole bl word issue easier 08:46:56 REFILL can even parse ROMmed source code 08:47:03 but it complecated things SLIGHTLY with fload 08:47:29 i dont think anyone is going to be romming sourcecode for isforth hehe 08:47:45 tho i dont want to restrict themfrom doing so 08:49:14 http://www.taygeta.com/forth/dpans6.htm#6.2.2125 08:49:37 it is a rather elegant solution to the input problem 08:49:43 ugh... hee... ok ill go look :P 08:50:31 ugh they are still talking about BLOCKS for christ sake 08:50:40 when are they going to pull their heads out of their asses 08:50:55 block files almost made me rm -rf forth when i was first starting 08:51:07 its totally DUMB !!! 08:51:11 they have pulled their head out, actually 08:51:36 the only required input is the terminal input device 08:51:42 you can write source files but you have to fragment them into lots of little pieces and CRAM what ever you can into each block 08:51:52 blocks are optional, as are text files 08:52:15 imho they should require NO BLOCKS at all 08:52:25 that shouold be a prime directicve 08:52:29 NO BLOCK FILES 08:52:46 c coders would look at that --- point there fintersn --- laff behind their hands 08:52:50 and we would deserve it 08:52:57 they do say, however, "if a system provides the optional file-access wordset, it shall also implement the blocks wordset" 08:53:08 ugh 08:53:11 whoop-de-doo 08:53:28 its the "fred flintstone" model for forth 08:53:29 ugh 08:53:30 it's like 6 words to implement blocks w/in text files 08:53:53 granted, it wouldn't be well tested on any system I used 08:53:57 heh 08:54:04 how come bongo doesnt hang in here ? 08:54:19 --- join: nilsw (00000@ncdial2-149-2-nc.nordcom.net) joined #forth 08:54:23 nilsw!! 08:54:24 not sure, see him #assembler 08:54:25 hi dood 08:54:26 :-) 08:54:30 greets, nilsw 08:54:33 yea im in there too 08:54:41 hey I440r, MrReach 08:54:53 and hi oxygene 08:54:54 nilsw i u hang arround here long ennuff ill have a forth system to pass out heh 08:55:05 actually, I440r, blocks will have a role in my future of I ever do any forthing on my Jornada 08:55:09 :D 08:55:30 ill have fload working by the end of th day - and if mrreach hurries up - we can have an assembler extention by tomorrow too :) 08:55:39 blocks are a good way to organise a primitive DB on the FlashRAM cards 08:55:41 ok - in 6 or 7 weeks :P 08:56:00 * MrReach shoots I440r in the foot. 08:56:31 i440r foot in shoot 08:57:43 i think bongo is displeased with someone in here - maybe even me - i dunno 08:57:58 i asked him how come he doesnt hang in here no more and he didnt answer 08:58:04 and disconnected 2 minutes later 08:58:08 :( 08:58:49 so when are you going to start that assembler ?? :) heh 08:59:49 I think he was idle 09:00:54 i dunno 09:00:56 maybe 09:01:15 i HOPE he isnt at odds with someone here - but why doesnt he hang here any more 09:01:40 nilsw wanna see isforth as it is rite now ??? 09:01:41 maybe not enough activity to be worth while 09:02:12 yes I440r 09:02:15 dcc 09:02:16 this channel is an active channel - it just has dead periods while ppl are off doing important stuff 09:02:22 i cant dcc thru a firewall 09:02:31 hang on ill tgz it up and put it in /pub on my server 09:02:36 email- physical_dump_of_memory@gmx.net 09:02:39 oh, ok 09:04:12 want me to email or can you ftp it ? 09:04:26 ftp to 65.224.146.84 09:04:34 then cd /bub and get the feb20 tgz 09:04:44 erm /"P"ub even heh 09:06:41 dont try using the fload word yet tho - i wrote it last nite in bed - ill get it working today heh 09:06:50 I440r: if you ever write a forth for a system w/ no host OS, you'll come to appreciate the blocks wordset 09:07:06 mrreah im sure i wont heh 09:07:13 i'm downloading 09:07:14 im writing a forth for an 8051 09:07:29 it will accept sources over the seriall line and compile them into ram 09:07:40 it's awkward, granted, but at least you dont have to write a whole filesystem 09:07:47 if you want it rommed you have it send you the compiled code back 09:09:02 everything except fload works in there nilsw - if you find anything not working as you expect it to - let me know and ill tell you if this is a bug or a "feature" heh 09:09:32 oh i lie. thers another thing not working but the place it gets called is commented out 09:09:57 the command tail parser is not debugged yet - i put that on hold while i did more important things heh 09:10:08 ill fix that when fload is working right 09:11:00 sorry about my slow connection speed linsw 09:11:05 i miss my dsl :P 09:11:55 I'll bet you do 09:12:56 heh 09:13:31 its a bitch going from doing 40k per second download to 2k if im lucky 09:14:47 I440r: did yoiu read the appendix entry for REFILL ? 09:14:59 you obviously read the blocks extention for it 09:15:47 i think i gave up heh - they have chosen a realy micro minitature font and an extra wide display 09:15:53 very difficult to read 09:16:04 i have an 800x600 display where small things usually look bigger 09:16:09 their text still looks small 09:16:11 huh? 09:16:24 and i - with my very good eye sight STILL have to squint to read that page 09:16:35 every time i got there - no matter what machine 09:16:37 set your browser fonts ... it uses whatever font you like to browse the web with 09:16:42 their text is always miniscule 09:16:47 they didn't specify any font at all 09:17:05 * MrReach double-checks the source code 09:17:14 then why is THEIR pave alwasl ... .. ..... .. .. ...... <-- read that 09:17:24 and other sites that dont specify have larger text 09:17:58 actuall im trying to find the sources to libforth :P 09:18:29 we got lightening here 09:18:57 there is not a single FONT command anywhere, nore is there a STYLE command anywhere 09:19:24 weird 09:19:24 hang on 09:19:37 * MrReach scans his bookmarks for a site that has no font spec 09:20:32 ill look at refill again in a second - ive been emailing the guy who id lib4th and i wanna see his sources heh 09:20:38 its downloading now 09:20:56 yeah, libforth is *WAY* cool 09:22:02 i know - i have avoided looking at it tho because i want to make sure isforth gets MY lisence, if i used any part of his sources he might want to tag his lisense on me hhe 09:22:33 heh, doubt he cares 09:22:42 forthers have always scrounged code 09:22:53 btw i added a lisence and readme 09:23:05 the lisence is basically lgpl but 09:23:09 Gnu lib license? 09:23:12 if you read the readme it points some inconsistancies out withy lgpl 09:23:16 * MrReach nods. 09:23:25 and my readmy specificaly excludes parts of lgpl 09:23:31 it isnt a LIB lisence 09:23:38 its a LESSER gpl 09:23:48 not a LIB gpl 09:23:50 right 09:24:01 and if you look at section 5 paragraph 2 you will see that 09:24:10 * MrReach sighs. 09:24:17 if ANYTHING is "linked" to your library it becomes a derivative work 09:24:23 and therefor gets your lisence 09:24:23 ugh 09:24:33 acorrding to the original gnu, yes 09:24:47 the lgpl is supposed to avoid that 09:25:04 then read paragrap 9 of the preamble and it states that lgpl is trying to avoid that 09:25:10 but its NOT avoiding it 09:25:18 its stating it emphatically 09:25:26 if you LINK to the lib - you are a derivative work 09:25:38 i dont even want REAL derivative works to be forced to have my lisence 09:25:57 YOU decide your lisence. i have mine but it does not propogate unless YOU want it to 09:26:03 do they draw a distinction with static linking vs. dynamic linking? 09:26:06 i.e. a non viral gpl :) 09:26:13 yes 09:26:18 its the static linking thats the problem 09:26:41 if your code is physically attached to the library - its a derivative work 09:26:42 ugh 09:26:55 if it is static linked, then it *CAN* be considered a derivative work, because the lib is distributed with the app, and therefore *SHOULD* have source code with it 09:27:00 i EXCLUDE that part of gpl from my lisence 09:27:22 if you compile foo.4th and write an executable out 09:27:34 PART of your executable is IsForth 09:27:44 forth does not work well with copyright law 09:27:58 THAT part of your program is LGPL and you MUST supply source on demand 09:28:02 for IsForth 09:28:04 another way in which is it *WAY* wierd 09:28:22 the part of your executable that is derived from YOUR sources can have ANY lisence you want it to 09:28:26 THAT is my lisence 09:28:35 seems reasonable 09:28:39 yea 09:28:43 i thunked so to heh 09:28:52 nilsw u getting all obfuscated in my sources 09:28:54 ??? 09:28:55 heh 09:29:22 the problem is that current licenses think of software in the usual edit-compile-test paradigm 09:29:25 actually i think im going to add the above explanation to my readme :) 09:29:35 i know :P 09:29:40 how boring :P 09:29:49 and since forth doesn't work that way, using standard licenses is stuff a square peg into a round hole 09:30:20 the lgpl comes close, but not quite 09:32:02 heh 09:32:21 btw im keepig a changelog now 09:32:23 hehe I440r... no, i don't understand your code really 09:32:29 never done any forth, nor much assembly 09:32:43 nilsw well - stick arround - learn how REAL coders code :) hgeh 09:33:05 and im using prcs for version control 09:33:35 well. i know a bit assembly, but it would take me hours to get through your big code 09:33:54 and i'm more interested in C atm, since it solves all my problems :) 09:34:41 nilsw it IS big code but if you look at the average size of any function in there 09:34:46 its about 4 lines of code :P 09:34:51 average 09:36:13 he's lost because it looks like NEITHER forth NOR assembly 09:36:37 tho - how the execution threads through all those very simple functions would be tough to figure out heh 09:36:43 someone intimately familiar with forth will recognise the structure 09:36:52 yes 09:37:04 mrreach u wanna grab that latest too ??? 09:37:11 someone who codes ASM for a living will think your totally insane 09:37:19 have you looked at it in depth any ? 09:37:28 i AM totally insane :) 09:37:31 yes, I have, actually 09:37:32 who said that ? 09:37:32 grr 09:37:46 anything look totally WRONG to you ?? heh 09:37:55 oh i know why you think ] is the compiler 09:38:03 its because thats what tcn did heh 09:38:13 ] *CAN* be a loop 09:38:20 doesn't mean it HAS to be 09:38:23 have u seen the soruces with seperate headers and with query and expect written ? 09:38:30 fpc uses ] as the compile loop 09:38:33 I saw you discussing it in here earlier 09:38:40 i ALWAYS thunked that was another over complecation 09:38:53 fpc is full of them 09:38:54 oh 09:39:13 theres one thing i could never fscking figur out from fpc and f83 09:39:13 actually, putting a loop in ] removes an IF...THEN construct in INTERPRET 09:39:23 i know WHAT its doing, just not HOW 09:39:31 i have figured out part of it but 09:39:41 what the hell is parse doing exactly ? heh 09:39:44 what is doing what? 09:39:51 i know what parse does 09:40:01 it gets 'tib and #out 09:40:11 points #out byts into 'tib and scans for a space 09:40:18 and returns a length and an address 09:40:32 it also updates >in to point past the parsed string 09:40:42 i just dont understand all that stack manipulation its doing 09:41:00 ive ran it in my head a gazillion times and it just ties me in knots :P 09:41:06 heh, it's not really important 09:41:10 i know 09:41:14 it is and it isnt 09:41:18 i KNOW it works 09:41:31 but i have a basic need to have code i understand in my sources heh 09:41:44 i would rather have a badly working parse i understnad 09:41:46 the important part is that PARSE is like WORD, but does not skip over leading delimiters 09:42:02 than a really brilliant parse that i dont :P 09:42:05 word calls parse 09:42:06 hrm 09:42:13 i dont think my word skips blanks 09:42:20 i dont have a -trailing either 09:42:27 words can be written to skip leading delimiters, then call PARSE 09:42:36 yea 09:42:37 ooops 09:42:42 WORD can be written to skip leading delimiters, then call PARSE 09:42:49 correct hehe 09:42:56 word doesnt parse on blanks all the time :P 09:42:57 this is actually important 09:43:01 its used to parse on " too heh 09:43:18 word takes the delimiter as a parameter 09:43:20 in my forth, _everything_ less than decimal 33 was considered a space and skipped 09:43:30 oh 09:43:32 hrm 09:43:37 not sure that would work here 09:43:42 what about escape sequences 09:43:55 ^[[2J 09:43:56 etc 09:43:58 in the input que??? 09:44:01 yes 09:44:06 yuck! 09:44:13 when you do an enquiry as to the whereabouts of the cursor 09:44:25 the terminal sends the info back to you thru the terminal 09:44:26 WORD would skip the escape, return the ASCII chars 09:44:40 your KEY recieves a ^[[some-secuenceD 09:44:44 make that D an r 09:45:00 KEY does not use WORD, and WORD does not use KEY 09:45:13 expect uses both 09:45:28 it does? 09:45:39 it does in MY forth 09:45:41 WORD does not use EXPECT ? 09:45:55 word calls query in my forth 09:46:05 and query calls expect 09:46:09 and expect alls key 09:46:12 calls 09:46:14 anyway, as a rule, WORD is _only_ used to parse dictionary names 09:46:44 not always it also parses strings like ." blah blah" 09:46:58 in the appendix, ANS talks at length about why WORD is inappropriate for general text parsing 09:47:04 and i see no reason why it cant be used to parse protocol strings like irc protocol etc 09:47:05 no, it doesn't 09:47:20 or it shouldn't 09:47:21 it sure does in fpc and it sure does in my forth 09:47:31 then there is an error in your code 09:47:48 : ." compile (.") '"' word bolah blah plce string at here" 09:47:52 for example, what happens with ." " 09:47:57 my word doesnt put the parsed string at "here" 09:48:02 it puts it at "hhere" 09:48:04 for a reason 09:48:22 yes, for interpreting strings 09:48:23 it would return a string length of 0 09:48:30 no, it wouldn't 09:48:38 it *SHOULD* 09:48:52 but WORD skips any leading delimiters 09:48:55 and the ." would call type which would display that 0 length string :P 09:49:02 i.e. display nothing 09:49:03 it would skip the first quote 09:49:17 my word doesnt :) 09:49:33 which might be wrong 09:49:40 I should think so 09:49:48 anyway - who the fuck would want a zero length string ? 09:49:57 abort" " <-- just use abort 09:50:05 ." " --- just use NOTHING 09:50:26 does forth allow 09:50:27 ." 09:50:29 string 09:50:29 " 09:50:31 no 09:50:59 and i forget why i brung that point up - gawd i must be getting old heh 09:51:04 duh! It might be in a word designed to parse configuration params from a file 09:51:05 --- join: nilsw` (00000@ncdial2-143-2-nc.nordcom.net) joined #forth 09:51:15 oh cool 09:51:17 2 of you 09:51:19 --- quit: nilsw (Killed (NickServ (Ghost: nilsw`!00000@ncdial2-143-2-nc.nordcom.net))) 09:51:21 hehe 09:51:23 now you can learn twice as fast :) 09:51:25 --- nick: nilsw` -> nilsw 09:51:25 heh 09:51:31 in which case, a null string is _very_ useful 09:51:38 i have to learn how to write a floppy driver now 09:51:42 no 09:51:47 i think it would be silly 09:51:53 look at what it would compile 09:52:01 dd (.") 09:52:05 db 0 09:52:07 dd the 09:52:08 dd code 09:52:09 you're not looking at what I wrote 09:52:10 dd that 09:52:12 dd follows 09:52:19 I'm not talking about INTERPRET 09:52:24 oh 09:52:25 word 09:52:28 not ." 09:52:40 I'm talking about a word that parses the input stream for some reason 09:52:46 k 09:53:01 WORD will not allow empty strings 09:53:07 PARSE will 09:53:14 yes 09:53:18 that i know already heh 09:53:39 entering [cr] on an empty line returns a null string 09:53:44 we dont count the lf 09:55:07 words is designed to be used specifically for parsing the names of dictionary words 09:55:14