00:00:00 --- log: started forth/02.04.30 00:32:29 --- join: goshawk` (goshawk@goshawk.dialup.access.net) joined #forth 01:14:32 Hi 01:14:57 --- quit: davidw (Remote closed the connection) 01:15:01 hey hey =) 01:40:18 --- quit: goshawk` ("...") 02:13:32 --- join: Soap` (flop@210-55-82-125.dialup.xtra.co.nz) joined #forth 02:16:51 Hi Soap` 02:22:24 'ello 02:24:22 --- quit: cdesousa (".") 02:28:44 --- join: syf (syf@faeldryn.demon.nl) joined #forth 02:41:46 hi syf 02:42:05 bro of sif :) 02:43:21 hi :P 04:33:29 --- join: Speuler (~l@a161161.upc-a.chello.nl) joined #forth 05:10:56 --- quit: syf ("changing universes") 05:12:51 --- join: cdesousa (syf@faeldryn.demon.nl) joined #forth 05:25:15 --- join: sif (~siforth@ip68-9-58-81.ri.ri.cox.net) joined #forth 05:25:15 Type sif: (or /msg sif to play in private) 06:17:01 sif: : xx 10 0 do i . loop ; 06:17:02 Speuler: 06:17:10 sif: xx 06:17:11 Speuler: Word not found: xx 06:17:15 sif: : xx 10 0 do i . loop ; xx 06:17:16 Speuler: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 06:17:29 sif: : xx 10000 0 do loop ; xx 06:17:31 Speuler: 06:17:44 sif: : xx 10000 0 do 10000 0 do loop loop ; xx 06:17:45 Speuler: 06:17:59 sif: : xx 1000 0 do 1000 0 do loop loop ; xx 06:18:00 Speuler: 06:18:08 sif: : xx 1000 0 do 1000 0 do 1000 0 do loop loop loop ; xx 06:18:09 Speuler: 06:19:12 sif: xxx begin again ; xxx 06:19:13 Speuler: Word not found: xxx 06:19:20 sif: : xxx begin again ; xxx 06:19:22 Speuler: Word not found: again 06:19:29 sif: : xxx begin 0 until ; xxx 06:19:31 Speuler: 06:20:05 sif: : xxx begin key drop 0 until ; xxx 06:20:06 Speuler: Word not found: key 06:20:43 sif: : xxx begin dup 0 until ; xxx 06:20:44 Speuler: stack underflow 06:22:11 sif: : xxx r> . ; : yyy 1 . xxx ; : zzz 2 yyy ; zzz 06:22:12 Speuler: 1 690 06:22:41 sif: : xxx r> >r ; : yyy 1 . xxx ; : zzz 2 yyy ; zzz 06:22:42 Speuler: 1 06:23:07 sif: : xxx r> >r ; : yyy 1 . xxx ; : zzz 2 . yyy ; zzz 06:23:09 Speuler: 2 1 06:23:14 sif: : xxx r> . ; : yyy 1 . xxx ; : zzz 2 . yyy ; zzz 06:23:16 Speuler: 2 1 690 06:23:38 sif: : xxx r> r> . . ; : yyy 1 . xxx ; : zzz 2 . yyy ; zzz 06:23:39 Speuler: 2 1 704 694 07:00:40 :-) 07:35:52 --- join: gilbertbsd (~gilbert@m190.max3.dacor.net) joined #forth 07:36:14 Hey 07:36:20 hi robert 07:36:55 sif: .( Hello ) 07:36:56 gilbertbsd: Hello 07:37:24 --- join: corr (~rmw@11Cust32.tnt2.lancaster.ca.da.uu.net) joined #forth 07:37:34 Hi 07:37:55 sif: : newword 5 0 do 42 emit cr ; newword 07:37:55 . 07:37:56 gilbertbsd: * 07:38:07 sif: : newword 5 0 do 42 emit ; newword 07:38:09 gilbertbsd: * 07:38:15 why does it show just one thing? 07:38:47 bored now 07:38:53 gforth: : newword 5 0 do 42 emit ; newword 07:38:57 gilbertbsd: in file included from *the terminal*:-1 07:38:58 gilbertbsd: /tmp/fsock-sh-server.request.tmp:46: unstructured 07:38:58 gilbertbsd: : newword 5 0 do 42 emit ; newword 07:38:58 gilbertbsd: ^ 07:38:58 gilbertbsd: Backtrace: 07:38:59 gilbertbsd: $4011B640 throw 07:39:03 gilbertbsd: $4012245C 07:39:03 gilbertbsd: $401284E4 def? 07:39:05 gilbertbsd: $4011EF34 ;-hook 07:41:00 rob_ert: do you know whats wrong with gforth? 07:42:17 No.. 07:42:45 ah I do know what I did wrong . 07:42:51 * gilbertbsd is a twit 07:42:57 gforth: : newword 5 0 do 42 emit loop ; newword 07:43:01 gilbertbsd: ***** 07:43:14 hah 07:43:29 gilbertbsd: :)) he said "fuck." 07:43:44 hi onetom 07:43:46 hahaha 07:43:48 --- part: corr left #forth 07:44:54 hi guys. wazzup? 07:45:04 Hey onetom :)) 07:45:08 very little. 07:45:29 hehe, yeah 07:45:34 lil, like * 07:47:15 I wasn't paying attention. 07:47:28 it should have come automatically with the typing of the ';' 07:48:46 --- join: futhin (~thin@h24-64-174-2.cg.shawcable.net) joined #forth 07:48:53 Heyhey 07:49:21 hey 07:49:32 what are you hax0ring rob_ert? 07:51:08 Debian ;) 07:51:25 Trying to (1) get networking to work on that other box, and (2) setting up NFS 07:55:41 okey dokey, gotta go 07:55:43 --- quit: futhin ("gtg") 07:59:17 --- join: herkamire (~jason@wsip68-15-54-54.ri.ri.cox.net) joined #forth 07:59:33 hi herkamire 07:59:41 hi herkemer 08:04:21 --- quit: rob_ert ("Strawberry fields forever.") 08:07:55 --- part: gilbertbsd left #forth 08:14:42 --- join: rob_ert (~robert@h237n2fls31o965.telia.com) joined #forth 08:37:46 --- join: MrReach (~mrreach@209.181.43.190) joined #forth 08:50:46 Hi MrReach :)( 08:50:56 hihi! 08:55:34 --- quit: Speuler (Read error: 113 (No route to host)) 09:20:07 hmmm.. I was just whining to myself how nobody is saying anything here, then I noticed that I (yet again) opened up xchat and then completely forgot about it for over an hour. 09:20:26 heh, so whine away 09:20:35 waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 09:20:54 is there something on your mind? 09:21:34 quote: never say "oops", always say "Aahhhh, interesting". 09:21:44 heh 09:21:52 good rule-of-thumb 09:28:44 my mind is mostly full of complaints. I should have slept more... 09:35:49 --- join: Soap- (flop@203-96-99-28.dialup.xtra.co.nz) joined #forth 10:01:56 --- quit: Soap` (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 10:14:51 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust30.tnt2.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth 10:16:14 :)= 10:16:50 --- quit: MrReach () 10:17:57 err. is he like pissed off with me or what ? 10:18:39 No idea... maybe he just felt like leaving? :-) 10:21:50 --- join: MrReach (~mrreach@209.181.43.190) joined #forth 10:22:00 hihi! 10:22:49 Hi again 10:22:58 Tell I440r you love him, he seems to need it :-) 10:23:06 heh 10:23:08 lol 10:23:17 * MrReach hugs the stuffing outta I440r 10:23:20 it just seemed to me like you left as i entered heh 10:23:22 lol 10:23:28 but i NEED my stuffing! 10:23:31 I did, actually 10:23:45 BECAUSE i entered ? 10:23:57 I tried to type "hihi!" to the channel, but mIRC had decided to stop receiving keystrokes for some reason. 10:24:04 aha 10:24:06 lol 10:24:16 that'll teach you to use windows :P 10:24:25 yup, I'm learning 10:24:48 win is great for the desktop ... forbidden for mission-critical, though 10:25:20 :) 10:25:28 I wonder if M$ has ever studied the cost per employee/day in the time they spend rebooting their machines. 10:26:14 er. its not THEIR cost 10:26:22 well, yes and no 10:26:29 you buy a broken package its your own fault :P 10:26:32 I presume they use their own op-sys 10:26:49 i bet they are porting all their servers to linux tho ;) 10:26:57 haha! 10:27:04 trying to get these vocabs to work 10:27:08 * MrReach nods. 10:27:08 i crash on reveal 10:27:15 methinks its got a bug :P 10:27:30 probably 10:27:36 nasm however IS reliably chaining words on different vocabs now 10:27:36 probably more than one 10:27:40 i looked at the listing 10:27:48 and the links are correct 10:27:54 cool 10:27:57 hashing yet? 10:28:09 I *THINK* it can be done with NASM 10:28:18 no. all words are on the first thread 10:28:33 it might be possible to hash in nasm but it would be extreeeemly complex 10:28:39 but, as you've pointed out, NASM has some quirks in the macro processor 10:28:57 if nasm could do %define arrays it would be easier :) 10:29:22 im not goign to try getting nasm to do it 10:29:35 ok 10:29:42 i might write a word that goes thru each vocabulary and rehashes it on boot tho 10:29:47 might as well remove the hash tables, then 10:29:58 oh! that's an idea 10:29:58 as a kludge till they are actually COMPILED on the correct hash table 10:30:03 kinda lame, but it would work 10:30:07 yea 10:30:09 kludge heh 10:30:11 BUT 10:30:24 sequence of events.... 10:30:28 1: compile kernel 10:30:33 2: run kernel.com 10:30:39 kernel.com rehashes all words 10:30:50 3: extend kernel (compile hashes) 10:30:57 oh, cool, only during the compile phase 10:30:57 4: save out new extended kernel 10:31:21 5: run extended kernel - this needs to know it should NOT rehash 10:32:01 when i got the assembler and meta compiler the meta compile would do all the hashing so i can rm -rf the 'rehash' word 10:32:56 heh 10:33:30 gotta run for a bit 10:33:34 k 10:33:35 --- nick: MrReach -> MrGone 10:33:41 im a debuggin :) 10:43:42 --- join: tathi (~tathi@wsip68-15-54-54.ri.ri.cox.net) joined #forth 10:46:05 Hello :-) 11:13:14 --- quit: I440r ("bbl") 11:38:00 --- quit: rob_ert ("Strawberry fields forever.") 11:45:11 --- join: Fare (fare@samaris.tunes.org) joined #forth 12:34:56 --- nick: MrGone -> MrReach 13:23:15 --- join: rob_ert (~robert@h237n2fls31o965.telia.com) joined #forth 14:23:51 --- quit: tathi ("Client Exiting") 14:25:47 --- quit: herkamire ("Client Exiting") 14:54:33 --- join: Speuler (~l@a161161.upc-a.chello.nl) joined #forth 14:57:44 Hello 15:50:31 hihi 15:59:14 --- join: aaronl__ (aaronl@vitelus.com) joined #forth 15:59:32 --- part: aaronl__ left #forth 16:32:00 --- nick: rob_ert -> ^zZzZz^ 16:32:25 --- quit: ^zZzZz^ ("Strawberry fields forever.") 17:28:34 --- quit: Fare ("3053") 17:34:46 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust254.tnt3.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth 17:34:57 well i think were almost ready with vocabularies :) 17:35:05 not quite there yet tho 17:35:06 cool! 17:35:08 but close :) 17:35:39 I think I borke my bot 17:35:40 do you still get a buzz when you been trying to get something to work and then figure it out ? 17:35:47 lol i did that :) 17:35:53 with mine heh 17:36:01 yes, I do 17:36:07 when im working on something and then it all falls into place i get a realy good buzzz 17:36:11 who the hell needs drugs :) 17:36:21 people tired of coding 17:36:31 its not even working yet but im high as a kite heheh 17:36:34 lol 17:36:41 I used to use marijuana to get buzzed ... got bored with that, too 17:36:59 man i was getting realy annoyed with a gazillion things all in one vocab 17:37:09 i did it a cpl of times - never did nothing for me 17:37:15 its like - bleh. so what 17:37:18 so, I don't toke as much as I used to, and don't code as much as I used to 17:37:19 i never bothered after that 17:37:41 heh 17:37:43 i used to code for like 14 hours straight and sleep for 4 or 5 17:37:53 for like months on end 17:37:57 arg! 17:38:06 a mind is a terrible thing to fry 17:38:10 lol 17:38:24 Mt. Dew? 17:38:26 now i just code for 11 or 12 hours and sleep for 11 or 12 hours :) 17:38:34 dew works for me! 17:38:53 heh, the trademark of a dedicated coder 17:39:17 used to be to be twinkies :P 17:40:32 well, which should I do? clean install of WinXPPro ... or try to get a DSL card to work with Linux? 17:40:48 both are laborious and potentially fustrating 17:41:09 dsl works with linux easy 17:41:18 internal modem you mean ? 17:41:19 yeah, but with a PCI card??? 17:41:24 eep 17:41:31 internal modems SUCK lol 17:41:34 hrm 17:41:47 I'm so sick of this Cisco router I'd like to shoot it (literally) 17:41:49 one would assumei it would require drivers 17:42:15 if it would do bridge mode correctly, I'd be happy 17:42:20 but NOOOOO! 17:42:37 lol 17:42:54 if I can get it to work, the internal card would be MUCH more versatile 17:43:35 ya 17:43:41 i would say try get it to work 17:43:48 but you might need kernel drivers for it 17:43:50 that's a big "if", though 17:43:53 yep 17:44:13 lots of browsing around kernel hacking sites, maybe a kernel compile 17:44:20 blah 17:44:35 who made the card 17:44:46 maybe they SUPPORT it in linux (dont hold your breath tho) 17:44:47 but XP is about the same, copy all my data onto the server (about 4 hours) 17:44:59 good, idea, lemme go get it 17:45:46 ooh how should 'words' work with multiple vocabularies 17:46:01 words [enter] only display words that are in context ? 17:46:07 words blah [enter] 17:46:18 display all words in context that have 'blah' in them ? 17:46:39 i would also like to be able to list words from ANY vocab even if its not in context 17:48:46 and - is 15312 bytes for an unextended 32 bit forth ALOT? or is it just me 17:48:55 ok ... 17:49:12 it's quite a bit 17:49:39 WORDS should show everything currently visible 17:49:56 (the search order stack) 17:49:58 i.e. all words from all vocabularies listed in context 17:50:04 right 17:50:12 thats what i thunked 17:50:19 now, there's two ways to do the other 17:50:21 fpc allows 'words bleh' 17:50:29 and any word withy 'bleh' in it gets listed 17:50:36 s" blah" WORDS-LIKE ... and 17:50:47 WORDS" blah" 17:51:01 hrm s" again :P 17:51:08 words" looks good tho 17:51:10 ' s" ALIAS " 17:51:16 lol 17:51:23 sorry, forgot your knee-jerk 17:51:43 and to list words from ANY vocabulary even when not in context ? 17:51:48 if you think about it, WORDS" contains WORDS-LIKE 17:52:00 ALL-WORDS 17:52:22 er no. all-words would show ALL words from ALL vocabularies 17:52:32 what if i wanted to list all words from the assembler vocabulary 17:52:35 right, isn't that what you wanted? 17:52:35 words assembler 17:52:53 all-words would be usefull too but it would flood the screen heh 17:53:05 you wanted substring matching? 17:53:08 im not thinking of what i want - im so familiar with my forth i know every word in it by heart heh 17:53:25 substring matching and the ability to specify the search order for words 17:53:31 without modifying context 17:53:35 oh, AND specify? 17:53:41 yes lol heh 17:53:49 god, I can't even think of a syntax, much less a good name 17:54:48 exactly! 17:54:52 see why i asked you ? 17:54:52 lol 17:55:13 it would also make ppl want to do both at the same time 17:55:16 not one or other 17:55:21 hrm 17:55:24 sounds like featureitis 17:55:43 if people want to search a wordlist, let them add it to the search stack 17:55:52 otherwise, they can look globally 17:56:10 ya 17:56:15 (which gets a bit confusing when considering hidden vocabs) 17:56:31 should they be able to do substring searches with each method ? 17:56:33 it's an Intel DSL Pro 2100 17:56:43 pretty generic card 17:57:03 if intel themselves doesnt support the chipset in linux some third party might 18:00:02 . 18:00:38 I'm searching 18:00:58 with some succcess, I'm obviously not the only idiot trying to do this 18:02:21 :) 18:05:55 --- join: davidw (~davidw@ppp-110-19.25-151.libero.it) joined #forth 18:12:34 well, guess what I'm gonna do? 18:12:53 I'm just gonna plug the card into the server and see if it recognises it 18:13:05 guess what that means for my IRC connection??? 18:13:39 --- nick: MrReach -> MrGone 18:13:49 hehe 18:13:57 erm.... let me guess 18:14:18 * I440r hopes mrreach doesnt blow his b0xen up! 18:23:44 --- join: MrReach (~mrreach@209.181.43.190) joined #forth 18:24:16 well, I'm not going to do any such thing ... the ethernet cards take up all my PCI slots. 18:24:23 blarg! 18:24:55 I'll tack XP tonight, worry about the card later ... the router does "ok" 18:26:34 lol 18:26:39 how many slots do you have ? 18:26:54 how many nic's ? 18:26:54 three in this old motherboard 18:27:05 err why does your box need to be on three networks 18:27:07 two nics, one video card 18:27:09 cant you use a HUB ? 18:27:14 aha 18:27:15 rite 18:27:24 one nic for local net - one for external ? 18:27:35 the old EISA video card biffed it 18:27:38 yep 18:27:52 grrr i STILL cant get to forth.org :( 18:27:55 my linux box really does act as a smart router 18:28:15 dinner's ready, back in a bit. 18:28:23 k im gona be outa here soon 18:28:28 need to finish the vocab code 18:28:31 --- nick: MrReach -> _MrGone_ 18:28:32 want to release it asap 18:28:37 * _MrGone_ nods. 18:31:48 * I440r outa here too now - code code code! 18:31:48 --- quit: I440r ("code code code") 18:41:46 --- quit: MrGone (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 18:47:33 --- nick: _MrGone_ -> MrReach 18:48:03 --- join: futhin (thin@h24-64-174-2.cg.shawcable.net) joined #forth 18:48:25 hihi 18:55:20 --- quit: davidw (Read error: 113 (No route to host)) 19:08:18 time to check my email.. has chuck moore sent me another email?! hold onto your pants.. 19:08:44 damn 19:08:46 no email heh 19:08:56 boy that was anti-climatic wasn't it? :P 19:09:18 * futhin wonders if cm's mail filter drops all emails of a certain size.. 19:10:04 has he sent you any yet? 19:30:14 yeah 19:30:25 but i'm waiting for a response on "when he's going to show up" 19:30:32 heh 19:39:55 gtg 19:39:57 --- quit: futhin ("gtg") 19:48:49 --- quit: ChanServ (Shutting Down) 19:49:34 --- join: ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) joined #forth 19:49:34 --- mode: carter.openprojects.net set +o ChanServ 19:49:34 --- mode: ChanServ set +l 83 20:25:15 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust180.tnt3.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth 20:25:42 all vocabulary words EXCEPT ONE - now work perfectly :P 20:25:48 the word 'vocabulary' segfaults :P 20:26:54 extended kernel is no 28320 in size - argh this is HUGE!!! 20:26:58 and growing :P 20:32:33 Woot! 20:33:41 heh 20:56:12 --- quit: I440r (No route to host) 20:57:37 --- quit: Speuler (Read error: 113 (No route to host)) 21:31:24 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust253.tnt1.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth 21:31:51 :))) 21:31:53 vocabularies are a GO :) 21:31:55 gotta update the changelog 21:31:59 then ill release 1.05b 21:32:56 --- join: goshawk` (goshawk@goshawk.dialup.access.net) joined #forth 21:33:10 hi gosh! 21:33:17 i just got vocabularies to work in isforth :) 21:33:21 close to a new release now:) 21:33:24 hey hey! 21:33:29 wow, cool 21:33:37 if i said it was a BITCH i would be understating it heh 21:33:41 was it as hard to do as you thought? 21:33:50 answered my question =) 21:34:14 why was it such a mule to kick around? 21:34:57 ever tried writing nasm macros to create forth headers ? 21:35:07 no =) 21:35:08 and then make them chain those headers on various chains ? 21:35:15 sounds ugly 21:35:17 exactly :P 21:35:27 it is. but i can live with it 21:35:37 because its not something i have to live with forever 21:35:40 hah...I am glad you got it going 21:35:54 me 2 cuz now i can do the assembler extension 21:36:00 actually, im DREADING that 21:36:01 heh 21:36:04 oh 21:36:07 do you plan on setting up "sealed" vocabularies, or no? 21:36:13 i also think i got the FBSD include fixed. 21:36:15 yes you can seal 21:36:25 nice 21:36:27 on both counts 21:36:42 seal is like only 21:36:47 only dumps everything except root 21:37:00 seal dumps everything except the specified vocabulary 21:37:05 right...it doesn't sound hard to do, but I wouldn't know 21:37:07 locks you into that voc 21:37:21 actually the various vocab primatives were easy 21:37:34 isforth's also word however is a NOOP 21:37:38 if you do 21:37:44 forth also also also also also 21:37:49 and then do blah 21:37:55 forth vocab is searched five times 21:38:03 unless they put checks in there to prevent 21:38:05 but if you do 21:38:19 forth also assembler also forth also assembler 21:38:27 you will search BOTH of thsoe twice 21:38:29 very bad 21:38:33 in isforth you do 21:38:34 only 21:38:39 now you have ONLY root 21:38:44 only forth 21:38:48 you have root and forth 21:38:56 only forth assembler forth 21:39:13 you have forth put on the context stack 21:39:18 then you get assembler pushed onto it 21:39:37 the second time you specify forth THAT vocabulary is rotated out to the top of the context stack 21:39:46 thers a word called .context in isforth 21:39:52 only forth assembler 21:39:54 .context 21:40:01 root forth assembler <--- top 21:40:03 forth 21:40:05 neat! 21:40:05 .context 21:40:12 root assembler forth <--- top 21:40:31 the word definitions takes top of context stack and puts it in current. all new defs go in that vocab 21:40:52 the 'rotate out to top' idea was mrreaches 21:41:09 i always hated the also word - always looked fubar to me 21:42:09 yeah...cobol...or applescript-like =) 21:42:29 yeah, where did you get the idea for a context stack? 21:43:40 cobol comment in reference to 'also' 21:43:48 err f863 uses one. so does fpc 21:44:00 i believe all forths that use vocabularies have a context stack 21:44:08 it specifies which vocabularies will be searched 21:44:17 yes yes, nm...it does 21:44:31 I use it all the time with PMF 21:44:31 oh. words now displays all words in each vocab thats in the context stack 21:44:32 :P 21:44:41 plus it names the vocab 21:44:44 [forth] 21:44:47 blah blah blah 21:44:47 yeah 21:44:50 blah blah blah 21:44:56 [assembler] 21:44:59 blah blahblah 21:45:01 blah blah blah 21:45:02 etc 21:45:14 ive not added the substring searches to it yet 21:45:17 cant do 21:45:19 words foo 21:45:26 to name all words that contain 'foo' 21:45:33 future enhancement (maybe) 21:45:33 heh 21:45:51 yeah, that would be nice to have 21:46:20 a lot of 'words' aren't implemented in showing what is in the current context, but the entire dictionary 21:46:35 in a number of home-brew Forths 21:46:39 I never understood that, really 21:47:18 thers alot about isforth thats not done the usual way. i did it the way i think it SHOULD have been done in the first place 21:47:23 like i have var and const 21:47:33 var has exactly the same definition for constant 21:47:38 const is state smart 21:47:46 in compile mode a const will compile a literal 21:47:59 i ALSO have variable and constant of corse 21:48:08 10 var foo 21:48:09 foo 21:48:12 returns 10 21:48:18 : blah xxxx foo yyyy ; 21:48:28 compiles a (lit), 10 into the definition 21:48:32 a TRUE constant 21:48:44 literals are faster than constants in isforth too 21:48:54 almost twice as fast 21:48:55 that's cool =) 21:49:59 it sounds like you are really going all out on isforth 21:50:12 you are paying attention to details that most people seem totally ignore 21:50:22 seem = seem to 21:50:50 I'm sorry I can 21:50:53 't try it sooner 21:50:53 :P 21:51:05 heh 21:51:25 most people who write forth compilers are writing the forth compiler for themselves 21:51:27 i am too 21:51:34 of course 21:51:47 but i am also trying to keep othere possible users in mind 21:52:07 i hope to some day be making MONEY with it 21:52:09 maybe 21:52:16 that would be neat =) 21:52:21 tho if i dont i wont cry as long as im making money elsewhere 21:52:27 haha, yeah =) 21:52:45 are you trying to get to the point where you don't need a C compiler for almost anything in Linux? 21:52:48 everyone has outright permission to wrie any apps with isforth they want 21:52:53 yes 21:52:56 nice =) 21:53:00 hi 21:53:05 hey one 21:53:10 i am already very close to that point 21:53:17 i4: that's really cool 21:53:23 once isforth has the assembler extension and can metacompile itself ill be there 21:53:32 i have an absolute HATE for the c language 21:53:42 that's really neat 21:53:51 my next task (other than research assembler) is to write a complete console windowing system in isforth 21:54:12 i could have done it already but my one and only vocabulary was becoming a bit crowded :) 21:54:14 yeah, you mentioned that 21:54:34 do you plan on supporting other x86 platforms other than Linux and FreeBSD, or is that about it? 21:54:58 I don' 21:55:02 linux, fbsd. a port to windows wouldnt be TOO difficult but i personally have absolutely NO interest in doing that port 21:55:07 21:55:36 oh, I am not saying Windows...really rough and volatile to keep maintained...and already a lot of competition there :P 21:55:37 if for instance YOU ported isforht to windows. i would put that port in my main distrobution. but i personally would not support it 21:55:46 heh 21:55:48 ya 21:55:52 I was referring to NetBSD, for example 21:55:56 aha 21:55:57 well 21:56:09 how different is the syscall mechanism of netbsd to fbsd 21:56:15 I do not know 21:56:20 me either 21:56:36 thats the only difference between isforth.linux and isforth.fbsd 21:56:42 is that the only thing stopping sucha port? 21:56:44 i have linux.1 and fbsd.1 21:56:53 syscalls? 21:57:03 make linux copies linux.1 to syscalls.1 which the build uses 21:57:12 make fbsd copies freebsd.1 to syscalls.1 21:57:25 no differences other than that one file 21:57:35 neat 21:57:59 ithink syscall r very similar through the bsd "product line" 21:58:02 i havent tested the new fbsd include yet - when i release (tomorrow prolly) ill find someone 21:58:06 syscalls 21:58:27 i believe all *nix use basically the same syscall numbers for the same functions 21:58:37 but the difference is in the way you MAKE the call 21:58:46 right 21:58:50 in linux you pass parameters to the syscall via registers 21:58:59 in fbsd you have the parameters on the stack and you 21:59:01 in true x86 style 21:59:03 call int808 21:59:04 (linux that is) 21:59:05 where 21:59:09 int080: 21:59:12 int 080x 21:59:13 ahhha, oyc 21:59:14 ret 21:59:19 thats an H btw not an x 21:59:48 mental note: must learn to type 22:00:02 your typing can't possibly as messed up as mine 22:00:07 as = be as 22:00:10 H & x r adjacent keys on ur keyb layout? :) 22:00:19 no 22:00:31 i was thinking 0x80 22:00:34 and typing 080x 22:00:37 ahh :) 22:00:39 instead of 080h 22:00:40 heh 22:00:44 I type almost exclusively with two or three fingers at any one time 22:00:49 postfix... 4th style ;) 22:00:54 i never use 0x80 either heh i always use 080h 22:01:18 ohhhohohoo 22:01:23 u lie 22:01:25 i can touch type properly with my LEFT hand - my roght uses the first 2 finters and the thumb only heh 22:01:33 u code in c all the time :p 22:01:47 c allows 080h or 0x80 22:01:54 my habits are to use 080h 22:02:01 persoinally i dislike BOTh methods 22:02:02 the x type 22:02:08 yeah...index fingers, right thumb for space, and the occasional ring finger for the shift 22:02:10 neiterh X or H are valid hex digits 22:02:12 what do u like then? 22:02:15 hex 22:02:16 80 22:02:17 there 22:02:20 thats a hex 80 22:02:21 decimal 22:02:23 80 22:02:29 there thats a decimal 80 :P 22:02:37 $80 22:02:37 k, but its not a number notation... 22:02:39 in asm i like $80 22:02:41 how's that? 22:02:42 hah 22:02:47 i like a86's method too 22:02:52 these r sepatate words 22:02:56 any number SRARTING with a zero digit is hex 22:03:00 H'345345' ? 22:03:02 otherwise its a decimal number 22:03:10 012 hex 12 == decimal 18 22:03:14 12 decimal 12 22:03:21 i4: A86 is pretty cool 22:03:24 MUCH neater 22:03:24 ah, thats another - and incompatible - solution... 22:03:27 i registered a86 22:03:34 I used to use that for a bit, too 22:03:41 i4: wow...a real first =) 22:03:55 i also registered the interactive disassembler pro 22:03:58 * onetom wonders how can an ASSEMBLER b ql... 22:04:00 check out the prices of that one heh 22:04:02 (no one I knew actually registered it...I, myself, cracked and actually bought myself a copy of TASM instead) 22:04:33 interactive dissasembler...that isn't the same as IDA, or is it? 22:04:35 the assembler a86 doesnt support the 386+ instruction set tho 22:04:41 yes 22:04:43 yeah...i386 for that 22:04:44 IDA pro 22:04:51 yeah...IDA is cool 22:04:59 err....A386 \ 22:05:08 i am even able to run ida in wine and disassembler linux executables 22:05:18 i have both a386 and d386 22:05:24 what annoyed me was that D386 wasn't equipped to handle protected mode :P 22:05:41 and eric isaacson lives within spitting distance of me and i still aint contacted him :P 22:05:44 heh 22:05:55 hah, no kidding 22:05:55 ya and someone told me a386 has a bug that lets it 22:06:00 lea eax,'foo' 22:06:32 if i wrote a386 and someone told me about that bug i would say 22:06:43 any idiot stupid enough to write that code deserves to get bitten 22:06:47 lol 22:06:49 haha =) 22:07:02 I440r: hey, tell me some bits&pieces about a86 coolness, plz 22:07:21 heh 22:07:21 well 22:07:31 it can assembler 20 thousand lines of code per second 22:07:38 it only supports .com files 22:07:43 k, so its fast 22:07:47 it has the a86lib mechanism 22:07:50 limited 22:07:56 you need the a86lib.com file to use it 22:07:58 whats that? 22:08:06 lets say you have a file called foo.s 22:08:06 I probably should have registed A86/A386 instead of TASM...even though TASM's debugger is a bit more comprehensive 22:08:11 another called bar.s 22:08:14 another called bleh.s 22:08:17 you can do 22:08:21 a86lib *.s 22:08:41 and a86lib would extract every single label etc from eachg of those files and store them in a file called 22:08:45 a86.lib 22:08:48 in the current directory 22:08:56 right 22:09:18 so it has symbol file support 22:09:20 if your source files reference ANY of the stored labels or variables etc. the correct file is automatically included for you 22:09:35 aha, autoinclude... 22:09:38 you can create a library of source files in some direcory 22:09:44 for instance 22:09:56 i have my main asm lib of various includ files 22:09:57 yeah...TLIB.EXE was a cheap hack of that functionality, if you ask me 22:10:03 i have another lib of gfx related stuff 22:10:17 primarily geared towards C programmers, who used TASM as some kind of add-on for their hll programming 22:10:18 the concept is copyrighted by EJI 22:10:29 he OWNS it heh 22:10:39 i was gona ask if isforth could 'borrow' the idea :) 22:10:54 you can set an env var 22:10:57 was? gonna? ??? 22:10:59 what is stopping you? 22:11:09 was going to ? 22:11:09 set a86lib=c:\somepath;d:\someotherpath 22:11:11 does it not fit in with what you had in mind for it? 22:11:22 goshawk`: ive gotta contact eji :) 22:11:38 yes. it does - but it wont work till i have metacompiler anyway :) 22:11:40 oh, ok...I was just wondering if decided not to for some reason 22:11:52 right =) 22:11:55 no. he might not like me stealing his idea heh 22:12:03 if he doesnt mind. ill use it 22:12:06 otherwise i wont 22:12:14 but im not ready to implement it yet anyway so... 22:13:30 he seems reasonable 22:13:40 I am sure he would agree, at least if you gave him credit for the concept of it 22:14:11 i would do THAT anyway heh 22:14:12 I440r: doesnt this algorithm assumes a single namespace? (rg, no vocs) 22:14:15 eg 22:14:28 which algorithm ? 22:14:37 this auto including 22:14:53 yeah, I know you would 22:15:00 no - the point is to keep a database of what words are defined in what files and if you reference a word the correct file should be auto included 22:15:06 I am just saying he'd probably make a point to ask about that 22:15:19 BUT. auto referenced words would have to be auto defered :P 22:15:23 I440r: like bigforth? 22:15:37 or forward refs will need supporting 22:15:44 what like bigforth ? 22:15:47 I440r: so every call 2 the word header creator 22:16:03 I440r: also records the current position, right? 22:16:07 no 22:16:11 thats a view field 22:16:14 so you can say 22:16:16 view bleh 22:16:21 and it will open the correct source file 22:16:30 im talking about words NOT as yet defined 22:16:32 if i say 22:16:34 bleh 22:16:42 ehhh 22:16:45 and bleh is defined in one of the stored files 22:16:47 just like me 22:16:51 that file is included for me 22:17:09 actually tho - this has some problems with it 22:17:17 forward references 22:17:17 and 22:17:25 not knowing who included what. where 22:17:31 but the sources have 2 be compiled/processed at least once 22:17:43 2 extract this info from them 22:17:44 nope 22:17:47 thats the point ehhe 22:17:56 one would compile a database of what was stored where 22:18:07 and any time someone accessed an undefined word 22:18:07 ?????????????????? 22:18:11 the database would be searched 22:18:23 but how do u make that db? 22:18:25 if the word is defined in the database its correct file would be compiled 22:18:40 lol the files would have to be compiled into the database 22:18:48 but that doesnt mean they would be 'compiled' 22:18:49 heh 22:19:06 im actually starting to see flaws in the plan anyway 22:19:15 things i dont like about it with regard to forth 22:19:19 so iwas also saying "processed" 22:19:20 ill have to give it some thought 22:19:32 oh hyeh i missed that :P 22:20:03 but a 4th src, cant b just processed 22:20:32 nope 22:20:33 correctly, unless u have some constraints against the sources... 22:20:47 because the source can define defining words 22:20:49 they have 2 b compiled, ithink 22:21:13 actually tho an overlay mechanism would work for me too :) 22:21:20 aha, those make the problem... 22:23:16 * onetom goes 2 take a nap 22:23:36 nite nitet :) 22:23:44 im buzzin too much to sleep now :) 22:24:01 iwas workin all the night 22:24:20 been there, done that heh 22:24:26 from midnight 2 6am 22:24:34 saw u :) 22:24:34 man this is sooooooo COOL!!! - 22:24:41 what? 22:24:42 I'm rather mentally burnt myself...for what reason, I don't know...I didn't do anything today :P 22:24:43 i have VOCABULARIES!!!!! lol 22:24:49 :))) 22:24:55 i4: yeah! congratulations 22:24:58 heh 22:25:05 * I440r pats /me on the back :) 22:25:06 got the bug in the word *vocabulary* ? 22:25:11 yes 22:25:21 tho i dont know what was causing it i fixed it 22:25:31 the word vocabulary no longer segfaults heh 22:25:52 sound a lil bit weired, tho... 22:26:05 its fixed itself.?..? 22:26:16 i was doing head" ,call dovoc 22:26:20 to create the vocab 22:26:23 i changed it to 22:26:28 create ;uses dovoc 22:26:34 aha 22:27:05 does ,call parse? 22:27:16 no 22:27:24 it is a run time compile only word 22:27:30 dd ,call 22:27:32 dd address 22:27:47 it fetches the item at its own return address and compiles it 22:27:59 and advances the return address past its parameter 22:28:02 & whats dovoc then? 22:28:03 its sort of like (lit) 22:28:14 dovoc is a word that all vocabularies use 22:28:20 its the runtime for vocabularies 22:28:44 but it doesnt compiles anything, doesit? 22:29:03 so where does the param of ,call come from? 22:29:18 it commas a call instruction at here and then computes the delta from 'here' to the call target 22:29:26 it just compiles a call instruction 22:29:37 hey hey heeeeeeeey 22:29:42 what call target? 22:29:48 if i put 22:29:56 where does the call target come from? 22:30:06 ill show you a real (ish) example 22:30:23 : constant head" ,call doconstant , ; 22:30:29 head" compiles ONLY the header 22:30:32 in head space 22:30:41 the cfa of the new word needs to be compiled 22:30:49 yeah 22:30:58 ,call compiles a CALL instruction TO the address specified after ,call 22:31:04 the above def would be compiled as 22:31:08 dd head" 22:31:11 dd ,call 22:31:15 dd doconstant 22:31:17 dd comma 22:31:20 dd exit 22:31:36 ahha 22:31:45 ithink igot it 22:31:54 heh 22:31:56 do u have dump? 22:31:58 for instance 22:32:12 yes dump is defined in forthsrc/utils.f 22:32:50 : create head" ,call dovariable reveal ; 22:33:02 chk the diff between the two defs, then 22:33:03 i think thats what its defined as heh 22:33:38 head" ,call dovoc & create ;uses dovoc 22:34:13 ;uses patches the already compiled in call to call somewhere else 22:35:06 : constant create , ;uses doconstant ; 22:35:20 the create commacalled a dovariable 22:35:28 does ;uses parse then? 22:35:31 ;uses patched the call dovariable to be a call doconstant 22:35:34 no 22:35:40 its compile only 22:35:54 it fetches the execution token compiled immediatly after it 22:35:59 think (lit) 22:36:06 compile only could b immediate, tho... 22:36:16 : (lit) r> dup cell+ >r @ ; 22:36:29 yes 22:36:36 aha 22:36:36 it could but no it cant 22:37:05 c c 22:37:13 tricky... 22:37:24 heh 22:37:42 and is not guaranteed too work in an ans forth 22:37:52 but really hi time 2 go 2 bed 22:38:00 because on entry into a : definition you have NO guarantees as to waht the top item of the return stack is 22:38:12 it has nothin 2 do w ans 22:38:13 ya 22:38:15 nite note :) 22:38:31 yes it is - ans says you cant be postative that top of return stack is your return address 22:38:35 it depends on the threading type 22:38:48 it depends on how your code is optimized 22:39:00 the code for : foo r> blahblah >r ; 22:39:03 might bbe INLINED 22:39:13 for example, yes 22:39:29 go to bed heh 22:39:40 but, eg, in native compiled pic asm 22:39:43 or you will blame me for feeling like shit when u get up tomorrow heh 22:39:45 lol 22:40:08 iwont, its already 2morrow, 7:38am :) 22:40:30 so in pics, there r >r & r> words 22:40:38 lol 22:40:42 but they only access the do-loop vars 22:41:09 coz the return addresses r maintained automatically 22:41:28 on an inaddressable hardware stack 22:41:32 rite 22:41:35 sub threading 22:41:37 (on-an-in :) 22:41:38 :P 22:41:58 sub thread, sub thread, but not thats the point 22:42:12 but the inaccessability of the return stack 22:42:42 ya 22:42:58 so, dont blame ans 4 everything! 22:43:04 lol 22:43:09 i wasnt critisizing this time 22:43:10 heh 22:43:22 i KNEW the reasons for it :) 22:43:29 :P~ 22:43:32 oh, u didnt... sure sure :) 22:43:48 no - mrreach has educated me somewhat on this score 22:43:48 nite 22:43:51 really 22:43:53 ;) 22:43:55 filled in things i didnt figure out 22:43:57 heh 22:43:59 neway 22:44:02 nite nite :P 22:44:24 --- part: I440r left #forth 22:44:24 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust253.tnt1.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth 22:44:24 --- mode: ChanServ set +o I440r 22:45:37 nah, wassup, u came back so fast :) 22:45:43 --- topic: set to 'Isforth now supports vocabularies - update at http://isforth.clss.net very soon' by I440r 22:45:49 needed ops heh 22:45:54 * onetom is a sleepwalker ;) 22:45:57 easiest way to get ops is 22:46:03 to ident and cycle :) 22:46:11 if u say... 23:01:57 --- quit: I440r ("time for zzzz") 23:22:35 hiii 23:22:39 oops :) 23:22:43 heh 23:37:23 --- quit: MrReach () 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/02.04.30