00:00:00 --- log: started forth/02.04.16 02:43:35 --- quit: onetom ("na, megin telepofaztuk a kliensem pufferjet asszem") 02:43:58 --- join: onetom (tom@adsl52235.vnet.hu) joined #forth 07:37:51 --- join: Speuler (~l@195.30.184.51) joined #forth 07:38:07 hoi 07:50:02 Hoi Speuler. 07:53:13 hi the_rob 08:49:49 --- quit: Frac (Remote closed the connection) 10:32:00 --- join: mark4 (~mark4@1Cust239.tnt3.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth 10:32:22 --- nick: mark4 -> I440r 10:33:17 --- quit: I440r (Client Quit) 11:01:58 --- nick: Speuler -> PhoodPhrenzy 11:14:19 --- join: XeF4 (~xef4@dsl-XIV-238.kotikaista.weppi.fi) joined #forth 11:34:37 --- nick: PhoodPhrenzy -> Speuler 11:37:11 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust239.tnt3.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth 11:37:35 meep! 11:38:16 piiiiiiiiiip 11:38:53 if you think writing an irc bot in forth is easy, I challenge you to do so 11:39:35 hehe 11:39:38 i am doing 11:39:41 it IS easy :) 11:39:45 cept it wont connect any more 11:39:51 ill send you the sources 11:39:53 heh 11:40:05 doesn't count until it works @:^> 11:40:12 i made a change in the kernel and now my sockets code or the bot is b0rked 11:40:23 ive had it connected and in this channel before today 11:41:09 * MrGone nods 11:41:12 --- nick: MrGone -> MrReach 11:41:32 i gotta find out where it b0rked and phix it :) 11:41:38 from then on its plain sailing realy 11:41:55 interpreting the numerics is REALY easy hehe 11:42:04 i just pass them to "number" :) 11:42:21 and a case statement does the rest :) 11:44:18 yep 11:44:40 now that isforth HAS a "case" statement 11:44:43 a bit of scanning for text replies, still no biggie 11:44:43 oh btw 11:44:45 i did rename case 11:44:54 case: 11:44:54 can convert to numeric and use the same CASE 11:44:56 ;case 11:45:00 ok 11:45:02 thanks 11:45:15 of i renamed to opt but i might rename it back to of 11:45:17 mite not 11:45:24 opt works for me so,,, hgeg 11:45:43 i think case: and ;case is a more forthy set of names anyway :) 11:46:17 * MrReach nods. 11:46:41 tho, they dont define anything... 11:46:54 neither does ;code 11:47:06 ;code doesnt terminate a code section :P 11:47:14 despite of this, i also use it often :) 11:47:36 i consider xxx: and ;xxx to be a start and end of some type of code 11:48:07 ok, between DALNet, EFNet, and UnderNet ... there's currently 109,665 channels 11:48:12 and case: does compile something into the dictionary and ;code does terminate that which is compiled :) 11:48:15 agreed 11:48:37 lol - is that all ??? 11:48:54 actually, I use :xxx fr flow control, and xxx: for defining words 11:49:03 i once saw a channel on undernet that had so many people in it that all the comings and goings flooded me off :) 11:49:10 can you think of any other largish networks? 11:49:20 ircnet ? 11:49:41 there were 550 people on an Indian channel of DALNet this morning 11:49:48 ok, I'll go check 11:50:00 the channel i saw had about 3000 ppl in it 11:50:05 alot of activity heh 11:51:50 ircnet looks *WAY* small 11:52:08 i only ever go in #coders there :) 11:53:14 no, it's huge 11:53:21 bigger than EFNet 11:54:00 thanks, good tip, any others??? 11:54:10 efenet ? 11:54:28 efnet = Eris Free Network 11:54:47 not efnet 11:54:49 efenet 11:55:45 it *IS* efnet, unless its a pun on cursing 11:55:55 check yahoo 11:57:35 hrm 12:00:22 any other large networks? 12:00:45 not that i can think of heh 12:01:19 checking chatnet 12:02:26 I really appreciate networks that have statistics on their web pages 12:04:27 :) 12:04:32 how come yer doing this ? 12:05:40 as I said yesterday, I'm evaluating a potential business that sells professional robot services 12:05:56 oh ya 12:05:58 :) 12:06:16 how much would a robot's services cost for one night? 12:06:26 hehehe 12:06:40 depends - do you want a boy robot or a girl robot :) 12:07:16 heh 12:07:25 same as for 6 months 12:07:48 which is either $60 or $90, haven't decided yet 12:08:17 up to 172,507 PUBLIC channels, so far 12:08:38 I440r: girl robot, but I fear they only have ANS 4-breasted hermaphroditic robots 12:09:10 mrreach thers a problem with your plan 12:09:14 oh! boo! 12:09:20 yes? please tell! 12:09:27 unless you get 50 servers each with different ip's you can only be in 10 channels 12:09:49 yes, I will have to make an agreement with the server opers 12:09:55 correct 12:09:56 or link my own servers 12:10:18 do you have a fast enough line to link to undernet ? 12:10:27 you would need a DEDICATED line/box 12:10:36 yes, I think so 12:10:40 at least to start 12:11:10 768/256kbs at present 12:11:21 i dont think that will get you liked to undernet 12:11:24 $150/mo + $300 setup to colocate a box on a t3 12:11:33 i think the absolute minimum is 1 meg each way6 12:11:37 why is that? I should think the opposite 12:11:52 plus you would need a symetrical connection 12:11:58 same speed up and down 12:12:09 oh! I'm going to fight REALLY hard to make sure that my bots are presented as clients, not servers 12:12:41 otherwise I have to continuously upgrade server software every couple of months for each network 12:12:47 MAJOR headache 12:13:20 :) 12:14:20 yes, there's a couple of things that could kill the project 12:16:10 this again 12:17:21 hi davidw 12:17:52 * MrReach shuts up. 12:30:25 DUH! there's a list of like 200 networks in mIRC 12:32:33 :) 13:32:04 does anyone recommend some free subroutine-threaded forth for Linux/i386? 13:32:50 why sub threaded 13:32:57 I don't know much about the threading stuff, but gforth does lots of stuff 13:33:08 gforth ISNT forth 13:33:09 its c 13:33:49 looks enough like forth for me to be happy 13:33:49 I440r: because I have an in-place editing experiment that would be a lot easier on a sub threaded Forth 13:37:58 actually token-threaded would also do, but I need something usably fast on this 486. 13:45:59 isnt isforth fast ennuff ? 13:46:03 its free :) 13:46:24 so are some women, but that doesn't make them worth it 13:46:29 hehe 13:46:33 ill remember that :P_ 13:46:33 fast and free, I mean 13:46:55 sorry, couldn't resist 13:46:57 if you know any send em my way :) 13:47:41 heh, met one last weekend in Seattle, I think 13:48:30 u get her fone number ??? :) 13:48:33 I440r: I don't trust isforth yet and after reading through the sources, I doubt it is fast enough. 13:48:35 gimmegimmegimme! 13:48:45 have you run it ? 13:49:14 for about 5min 13:49:45 yes, in fact, mt wife and i stayed the night at her house 13:49:50 it was fun 13:49:54 lol 13:50:09 im assumning you werent going for the 3some thing:) 13:50:12 corse... 13:50:15 i could be wrong :) 13:50:26 nope 13:50:58 XeF4: what are you using it for? 13:52:04 MrR: text editing (anything (except maybe Emacs) is fast enough there), realtime video manipulation 13:52:19 ah! 13:52:19 and a softsynth 13:52:40 yep, but you need MMX 13:52:59 no you don't 13:53:04 no use asking a mouse to carry an elephant 13:53:38 well, you're right 13:53:48 this mouse has carried the elephant before.. I would just like to move from ASM to Forth so I get less elephant dung in my boots 13:53:59 haha! 13:54:16 lol 13:54:39 realtime video manipulation needs an AMIGA realy 13:54:46 PC's just dont cut it 13:55:04 well, they've caught up, finally 13:55:33 only took them 10 years 13:56:41 what is the isforth equivalent of do and loop? 13:56:48 do 13:56:51 and 13:56:52 loop 13:57:03 : foo 10 0 do i . loop ; 13:57:12 : foo 1000000 0 do loop ; do ? 13:57:30 of corse 13:57:56 err 13:58:01 what version of isforth are you running 13:58:06 heh 13:58:15 1.04b 13:58:30 lol 13:58:36 your running the kernel unextended ?> 13:58:38 only recent versions have flow cotrol? @:^> 13:58:46 did you do ./kerenel 13:58:50 followd by 13:58:52 fload isforth.f 13:59:05 that should drop you back to shell but leavs a ./isforth there :) 13:59:47 aaha 13:59:50 do wasnt in there - tcn removed it heh 13:59:57 i had to put it back in hehe 14:00:10 hm yes. this is ... better 14:00:39 you should have a status bar too 14:00:43 I have. 14:00:52 cool 14:00:53 * XeF4 hides his face in shame over not reading the README 14:00:58 if you dont have a status bar you are in the unextended kernel 14:01:02 not to worry 14:07:05 lol 14:17:33 no tail-call elimination :\ 14:18:10 and how would you propose doing that in a threaded forth? 14:19:44 mov PC,foo 14:20:48 yes, but you need a token to point at that bit of assembly 14:22:12 tail call / 14:22:15 ? 14:22:43 oh 14:22:48 yes thyere is 14:22:48 MrReach: you do, but that bit of assembly can alter the return pointer 14:22:51 its called goto :) 14:22:56 : foo xxx yyy zzz goto abc ; 14:23:16 * MrReach chokes, "ACK!" 14:25:09 its like doing this in assembler 14:25:12 call foo 14:25:15 ret 14:25:18 replace above with 14:25:21 jmp foo 14:25:31 yes, understood 14:27:05 * XeF4 cries over the parsing goto 14:27:12 my dad was on a contract where they were running out of code space and he replaced all call xyz ret with jmp xyz and saved 4k of code space 14:27:26 they wouldnt let him do it 14:27:33 heh 14:27:35 does goto parse ? 14:27:47 yes 14:27:49 they didnt understand that it was the same thing 14:27:58 ugh 14:28:04 it looks up the _following_ word 14:28:27 aha! good. 14:28:32 i also once tried to use the n=(n & n-1) method of counting bits in a byte but they wouldnt let me use it 14:28:48 goto doesnt need to parse 14:28:50 you might write it to take an xt on the stack, so you'd need "... [ ' word ] goto ... ; " 14:28:56 it can be an immediate word 14:29:04 all: a frined of mine gave me an eggdrop lesson, so 14:29:12 that takes the next inline literal as the address to go to :) 14:29:21 heh, onetom 14:29:30 all: a forth robot is about 2 come 2 life :) 14:29:39 you think so? 14:29:48 this ought to be interesting 14:30:00 maybe I'll buy it from you someday 14:30:19 buy what ? 14:30:20 sure, it will :) (if ur talkin 2 me... :/ ) 14:30:22 a forth bot ? 14:30:22 hope it works for you 14:30:26 yes 14:30:29 lol 14:30:35 note the "maybe" 14:31:02 as in a physical robot or a irc bot 14:31:03 its not that complex so anyone should ask money 4 it 14:32:08 irc bot 14:32:24 irc bots can get hideously complex 14:32:39 lol 14:32:45 not mine :P 14:32:46 sure, but mine will b very simple 14:33:01 coz it will b just a gateway 2 forth 14:33:02 then they aren't very effective 14:33:12 onetom how are yuou getting it to connect to irc ? 14:33:18 what forth u using ? 14:33:35 not me! the eggdrop connects 2 the irc server 14:33:36 for example, if the bot doesn't buffer output to the server, it can get ping flooded really easily 14:33:39 anyforth ;) 14:33:43 anyforth (R) ;) 14:33:51 :) 14:33:52 heh 14:34:02 most forths dont support sockets 14:34:14 that is quite true 14:34:25 & here comes my übersimplified 14:34:37 filesystem communication protocol 14:35:01 coz many of them support a file interface 14:35:12 (or can b easily expanded) 14:35:53 there r many ways 2 implement a bidirectional communication 14:36:20 i dont know which 1 is the most suitable 2 implement on top of a filesystem 14:36:39 so i ll pick up 1, and will code it 14:37:01 ive already hacked a prototype in bash 14:38:17 any1 interested in my plans? 14:38:59 sockets via file interface? 14:39:05 isforth already has the makings of an irc bot hehe 14:39:10 can be done with freeBSD, not sure about linux 14:39:13 sg like that, yes 14:39:17 i wanna code that but its on hold rite now 14:39:37 MrReach: no, u misunderstand me 14:39:59 MrReach: i plan it 2 be very low performance, but highly portable 14:40:16 MrReach: so it will not depend 2 much on the os 14:40:35 I440r: iknow it very well :) 14:41:12 I440r: and urs will b more sophisticated, while mine will work earlier ;P 14:41:25 ok, listen: 14:41:40 what do u need 4 a two way communication? 14:41:54 a socket :) 14:42:00 2 data channels for fullduplex mode 14:42:24 and handsake signals 14:43:12 these handsake signals act like semaphores 14:43:31 so the communicating processes can syncronize via them/it 14:43:46 --- join: Fare (fare@samaris.tunes.org) joined #forth 14:44:02 for a very simple semaphore 14:44:16 , for a binary one, 14:44:29 ucan represent it as a file 14:45:02 the existence of the file means the semaphore is true/1/on/active 14:45:27 and the non-existance is the opposite of it 14:45:34 hi fare :) 14:45:44 yup, hi fare 14:45:59 I440r: is it clear up 2 now? 14:46:16 not realy hehe 14:46:25 hi 14:46:29 ok, lets play it then: 14:46:38 u r a listener process 14:46:59 u r waiting 4 some data so u can process it 14:47:32 u know i will send that data 2 u in a file named: "/tmp/request" 14:48:08 ok 14:48:14 u r waiting for this file 2 appear 14:48:19 how do i know what the name of the file will be 14:48:40 this means a "there is a request 2 process" signal 2 u 14:49:01 its determined in the comm protocol 14:49:42 so the existence of this file is the implementation of a semaphore 14:50:00 but a file can also hold data inside, so 14:50:09 would be better with select in linux methinks 14:50:13 we also can utilize it as a data channel 14:50:37 wish i knew what select is... 14:50:44 --- nick: MrReach -> MrGone 14:50:47 is it a posix stuff anyway? 14:50:59 so does bsd also have select? 14:51:04 i believe it is posix :) 14:51:15 yes 14:51:19 1thing im sure of, windoz dont have such... 14:51:20 man 2 select 14:51:56 No manual entry for select in section 2 14:52:01 does too! 14:52:09 MrGone: pardon? 14:52:16 ah, bsd, okay 14:52:17 it's called "wait for mutiple objects" 14:52:24 no, in windows 14:52:41 MrGone: letme ask u a fast Q 14:52:51 does move atomic? 14:52:56 or just linking? 14:53:03 mv or ln ? 14:53:09 you can mix in semaphores, timers, and events as well as file and socket handles 14:53:35 beg parden? in the linux filesystem? 14:53:51 or in bsd... 14:54:04 which 1 u know of. u choose ;) 14:54:14 I don't think either one is guaranteed to be atomic ... but I don't really know 14:54:17 is it different in linux & bsd? 14:54:27 sounds bad... :) 14:54:29 --- part: Speuler left #forth 14:54:39 I've only run FreeBSD for a couple of hours 14:54:39 there must v atomic fileoperations iguess 14:54:52 creatin a file should b 1, eg 14:54:58 MrGone: lol 14:55:21 I know that BSD follows the "everything is a file" principle religiously 14:55:36 why, linux doesnt? 14:55:50 no, sockets are a kernel API 14:56:39 --- quit: Soap` (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 14:56:45 anyway, I'm really AFK now 14:56:48 --- join: jamc (~dne@mayonnaise.tsps1.freenet6.net) joined #forth 14:56:52 MrGone: ok, thx 14:56:55 MrGone: bxe 14:56:58 bye 14:57:17 hi jamc :) 14:57:32 * onetom AFC (Away For Coding ;) 14:57:35 hey 14:57:56 --- nick: Fare -> oaj 14:58:18 oaj? 14:58:36 olaj means petrol in hungarian ;) 14:58:47 oaj is used for "ouch" in cartoons here 14:58:50 (roughly) 14:59:01 --- nick: oaj -> Fare61453 14:59:02 hmmm, thank u robert 14:59:26 its jaj, in hungarian 15:00:26 --- quit: jamc ("[x]chat") 15:01:24 --- join: jamc (~dne@mayonnaise.tsps1.freenet6.net) joined #forth 15:01:42 wb :) 15:02:05 im listening to freddie king "the stumble" over and over heh 15:02:11 * onetom 4 15:02:32 --- quit: rob_ert ("(:") 15:03:17 --- nick: onetom -> f 15:03:34 how should we name the 4th bot? 15:03:52 well mine is gona be called forth :) 15:03:58 if i ever complete it 15:03:58 f is already owned by some1 else... 15:04:02 its on hold :P 15:04:05 try 4th 15:04:18 ithink u cant start a nick w a number... 15:04:22 --- nick: f -> onetom 15:04:36 [12:05] ### The nickname you specified is not a legal nickname. 15:04:43 guess ur rite 15:05:02 but, ithink, its not a problem, coz 15:05:18 --- nick: Fare61453 -> Fare 15:06:15 i will recognize 4thbot msg not by looking 4 ^forth-bot-name: 15:06:28 but eg, ^:: 15:06:31 so u can say: 15:06:36 :: 1 2 + . 15:06:39 oooor 15:06:54 : newword + * ; 15:06:54 call it does> 15:06:55 :) 15:07:01 :: 1 2 3 newword 15:07:06 that would be a good bot name :) 15:07:19 hehe. i like it 15:07:24 --- nick: onetom -> does 15:07:30 --- nick: does -> does\ 15:07:35 er closer :) 15:07:45 [12:09] -Notice -- Too many nick changes; wait 20 seconds before trying again- 15:07:51 hehe 15:07:51 nice? :)) 15:07:52 lol 15:07:56 try does> 15:08:10 its not the appropriate channel 4 playin w irc, ithink... 15:08:26 but motd also talks about it.. 15:09:16 and probably the also allow 0= of using bot on OPN, dont they? 15:09:23 --- nick: does\ -> onetom 15:09:32 i asked. bots are ok 15:09:38 as long as you keep it in this channel 15:09:48 hmmm, thats great. thank u 4 it :) 15:09:58 ??? 15:10:08 where else would i keep it? 15:10:20 now its "the fabulous thunderbirds c.mp3" 15:10:22 over and over hehe 15:13:32 do u know how 2 use select(), I440r? 15:13:44 man select 15:13:50 actually, select is deprecated. 15:13:52 man poll 15:15:11 hmm, other interestin bit of info... 15:15:23 hehe ive not done so yet 15:15:35 deprecated by whom? 15:15:37 i might change key? to use select instead of poll tho eventually 15:15:52 poll only works on ONE fd 15:15:57 when i strace programs, i usually exclusively c select() calls... 15:16:02 select will work on any number thereof 15:16:03 poll works on many fd 15:16:09 oh yea 15:16:16 pollfd's are chained 15:16:18 BUT 15:16:23 poll is in XPG4-UNIX and meant to replace select in SUS 15:16:27 select sleeps ytou 15:16:33 or sends you a signal 15:16:42 poll just says "nope - nuttin there yet" 15:16:43 gehg 15:16:46 SUS? 15:16:56 poll has a revent flag for every fd 15:17:04 Single Unix Specification 15:17:15 the latest in Unix standardization committees 15:17:50 do they have their head up their ass like the ans forth team ??? :) heh 15:18:00 please tell me ur not on the ans forth team fare hehe 15:18:01 lol 15:18:28