00:00:00 --- log: started forth/04.07.20 00:03:21 hm, gmail doesn't seem to want to accept it. Would DCC work for you? 00:03:44 no 00:03:47 I'd throw up a webserver, but I really don't have anything on this system yet (and, when my MacOSX CDs arrive ANY DAY NOW, I'll destroy it anyway) 00:03:50 i'm behind nat 00:04:52 OK. Maybe later, then. 00:05:05 slava: giving email in plain form is LAME - spambots are on duty 00:06:10 * ayrnieu notices the Factor HTTP server. 00:10:46 Serg, i get enough spam as is from having the email on a web site 00:14:33 * Serg reboots to test NTFSDOS boot floppy 00:14:37 --- quit: Serg () 00:43:07 --- quit: zardon ("leaving") 00:54:58 --- quit: ayrnieu (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)) 01:12:48 --- join: arke (arke@melrose-251-251.flexabit.net) joined #forth 01:13:09 HI 01:16:33 .... 01:16:35 bleh 01:16:41 talk to me :) 01:16:52 Robert: you should be awake! 01:16:56 I am. 01:17:00 mur: yout too 01:17:06 Robert: well good, then talk to me! 01:17:07 For the first time this summer, though 01:17:11 ...lol 01:17:39 thin should be awake still 01:17:55 and Herkamire too 01:18:02 o.O 01:18:07 gut. 01:18:18 Robert: wie kommt F2 voran? 01:18:38 Robert: du weisst, dass ich dich umbringen muss wenn du immer noch nichts gemacht hast ;) 01:18:42 Well, I've been working (a little...) with an optimizing compiler. 01:18:53 +work 01:19:14 But it's far from done (barely started), so it will be a while. Have other projects and stuff... 01:19:36 standalone compiler? 01:22:35 Yeah. 01:22:54 good boy 01:22:57 :) 01:22:59 uum 01:23:02 yeah 01:23:12 would you be willing to have it c0l0r3d? 01:23:18 * arke is working on CRK4TH/DOS 01:23:29 ...which is a colorforth/pygmyforth hybrid for DOS 01:23:33 and will be for others soon 01:23:35 like 01:23:38 standalone 01:23:39 and 01:23:40 linux 01:23:41 Actually I'm thinking about making the optimizer separate from the language. 01:23:41 and 01:23:43 l33t 01:24:10 Robert: wel, if you're thinking of making this non-STC I hope you know that you're gonna get facepunched 01:24:14 :) 01:27:33 The optimizer will use STC, but its input will probably be some sort of bytecode. 01:29:31 --- quit: arke ("thanks Robert.") 02:21:32 --- join: qFox (C00K13S@cp12172-a.roose1.nb.home.nl) joined #forth 02:34:51 Hi qFox 02:46:20 hi 02:47:16 I saw you find some nice problems.. 02:47:54 yes many walls 02:47:55 ' word 4- @ 9 + 02:47:58 but i have good hammer :p 02:48:19 now a bit stuck at trying to get branching to work. lets see where i stopped last night 02:49:05 i did figure out the thinking error i made earlier, mixing up compile and immediate, and all kinds of versions 02:49:26 oh right. it wont fetch the proper target to jump to. 02:49:42 which is quite strange, since literal is working fine, and its the same mechanism. 02:50:49 :/ 02:51:43 can you make a word for F that prints a words name, takes directory adr as argument? 02:51:47 (result by tick) 02:53:46 * Robert asks qFox to guess if the piece of code he just write was random nonsense or not. 02:53:51 wrote* 02:54:34 i dont know. could be for all i know 02:54:56 OK. It's not. 02:55:03 awesome! 02:55:03 :p 02:55:04 It will return the address of the name. 02:55:08 okay 02:55:13 *tests* 02:55:18 I think "print" is defined in F 02:55:24 count type 02:56:21 Yep.. 02:56:23 Heh. 02:56:25 "J. B. Rhine has been able to verify experimentally the reality of psychokinesis, extra-sensory perception, precognition, clairvoyance, and telepathy. Evidence is beginning to accumulate that plants have emotions, that there is a "pool" of vegetable consciousness which functions telepathically across great distances and possesses memory." 02:56:33 Ooookay. 02:56:36 ok that works 02:56:38 :) 02:56:44 uh 02:56:45 Someone has taken too much acid and read too much Asimov 02:56:47 big glob of text 02:56:49 * qFox runs 02:58:26 has there been any prove of telekinesis being possible, or is it safe to say i dont believe in it 03:00:27 Well, do proofs than can only be demonstrated under the influence of 1mg of LSD count? 03:00:57 let me think... NO. 03:01:18 Then no. 03:01:54 i thought of something interesting the other day 03:02:37 Yes? 03:02:38 would it not be possible, with specific equipment, to see sound waves or other type of waves, if they pass you (the equipment) 03:03:14 Sure... 03:03:41 Just have an array of directional microphones, and create a picture of where the sound waves have come from. 03:04:13 nonono, i mean, a .... beam of sound if you will, sound that you would otherwise not hear 03:04:23 that passes you, not "hits" you 03:05:20 Er, what do you mean? 03:05:58 well 03:06:10 you can only hear sound, if it hits you, right? 03:06:23 Yeah? 03:06:35 Oh, you mean sound somewhere else? 03:06:39 Hmmm 03:06:52 yes, say a sound generator of some kind 03:07:05 that specificly sends the sound to somewhere, where you are not in the path 03:07:19 and it doesnt hit anything that could make you hear it either... 03:07:34 Maybe you could use the optic characteristics of air when pressurized by sound waves 03:07:51 Does "hit" include affecting radiation? 03:08:22 hm i dont know. by hit i mean what happens when sound hits an object, it bounces around 03:08:48 (or is absorbed, partially or completely) 03:09:03 OK. 03:09:12 well, i was just thinking about it 03:09:16 :) 03:09:20 dont know why 03:09:27 I think it might be possible to listen using light. 03:09:51 But I don't know if those effects are very notable (compared to random noise) 03:10:31 oh wait i do, i was amazing myself on the fact how my cellphone was able to get a signal, even though there was a heavy thunderstorm going on here 03:10:58 yeah, other sound is probably the major problem 03:11:00 I don't think those produce very much noise on microwave frequencies. 03:36:23 hm. i'm putting in this ugly hack to get branching to work 03:36:32 not confident it'll always work though 03:39:11 hello 03:39:18 hey mu 03:39:18 r 03:44:11 --- join: root (~root@217.16.31.100) joined #forth 03:44:32 Dobryjj den'! 03:44:41 --- nick: root -> asau 03:46:04 privet 03:46:50 --- join: KOHTPA (~root@217.16.31.100) joined #forth 03:47:48 fg 03:48:20 New client --- new problem. 03:48:25 :/ 03:48:31 Terve, mur. 03:49:07 kak dela? bszo kharasho? 03:49:40 Vsjo prekrasno! 03:49:51 ohyeah, mur was ru too, i knew there was somebody else :) 03:49:57 Ishhu mesto pod solncem. 03:50:16 * mur only understand some russian :/ 03:50:32 oh. you're not ru 03:50:34 hm 03:50:36 very nice, you can then understand polish, among dozen other 03:50:36 --- quit: KOHTPA (Client Quit) 03:51:42 alekseij, did that mean, that the place is sunny (sun shines) ? 03:51:50 Polish is hard to read. Its notation is very unusual. 03:52:42 mur, that means I'm looking for the place to live etc. 03:53:19 asau, polish isnt' harder for me than russian, but both are little tricky 03:53:33 whats' solncem? 03:54:07 "Pod solncem" means "under the sun" literally. 03:55:00 mesto is place 03:55:03 hmm 03:55:16 ooh 03:55:24 yeah, tat's why i didn't get it 03:55:36 took it too literally :) 03:55:46 I mean that Cyrillic is much more appropriate to Slavic languages that Latin. 03:56:02 not really 03:56:09 it's all the same 03:56:15 only how you are used to write it 03:56:16 And when Slavic language models its sounds with Latin script it's very hard to read. 03:56:33 if you are not used to 03:56:54 E. g. you have to guess diacritics above "c" and "s". 03:56:58 some finnnish related langauges which are at russia are written with cyrillic letters 03:57:39 Tatars have additional letters for their specific sounds not found in Russian. 03:58:44 there are a lot of additional letters for cyrillic too 04:00:27 BTW, there is common error in transcripting "Dvorak." 04:00:39 There's no "r" in this word. 04:00:59 In Russian it should be written as "Dvor_zh_ak." 04:02:02 When it's written in Latin it's hard to even realize it can be erroneous. 04:07:03 hmm 04:07:05 What do you think is better notation for a^n: "a n pow" or "n a pow"? 04:07:20 a n pow 04:08:01 And what's about name: "power", "pow", "pw"? 04:08:14 Or even "^" or "**"? 04:08:35 i dont know about naming conventions 04:08:57 ^ power and pow are only to seem okay for me 04:11:28 ** is bad. could just as well mean * * 04:12:57 ** is irrelevant 04:13:02 it's somethign else, not power 04:13:14 and pw is not related to it at all 04:13:26 it's among other short abbreviations for temporal usage 04:13:37 pw ng df dx ar ax ah 04:13:38 etc. 04:15:03 I'd go with "pow" 04:15:16 definitely "a n pow" 04:15:49 qFox, mur, reasonable. 04:15:57 I would avoid ^ because it has a different meaning in C (xor iirc) 04:19:07 "Urodina" in Polish means "beauty" (Rus. "krasavica") and in Russian it means quite opposite. So what? 04:31:53 asau, i can't know all the native words, that's what comes when i try understand new languages, be it french, polish or norwegian 04:32:05 i do understand that words but not the language genuine words 04:32:18 indoeuroppean is quite easy to manage 04:32:29 one langauge supports each other in one way 04:34:39 mur, I know. The point is why we should tie ourselves to C? 04:35:02 wrong person :) 04:35:09 anyways i find ^ usable 04:35:36 it's more used than C's bitwise operators 04:35:46 but what about squareroot? 04:35:56 it's the opposite function 04:35:58 So do I. 04:36:05 sqrt is common. 04:36:38 Maybe "a n root"? 04:37:39 i meant that ^ and sqrt are not very associative with each other 04:37:59 but ^ and sqrt are both associative with other references 04:38:23 \/~~~ 04:38:30 but shoudl it reference to general practise of coding or intuitive practise of forth's? 04:38:33 V~~~ 04:38:50 just use sqrt.. 04:39:08 or broken powers (1/2 = sqrt) 04:39:10 /\___ 04:39:20 ascii art is not that nice even it's nice idea :) 04:39:21 ___/\ 04:39:33 might be interesting thouguh 04:39:41 and ou coudl always create aliases 04:39:44 \/~~~ was best. 04:40:03 wasnt there a ascii sign for it though? 04:40:10 or was that a different table 04:40:22 Murr. 04:40:46 It possibly conflicts with alphas. 04:41:05 true 04:41:13 God dag, Robert. 04:41:24 Privet. :) 04:41:51 * Robert thinks about if he should implement floating-point numbers in his Forth. 04:41:58 Need to know how they're stored first, though. 04:41:59 Robert. 04:42:03 mur. 04:42:11 Robert, again. 04:42:26 /\__ might be nice for root :D 04:42:32 as opposing to ^ 04:42:49 hmm 04:42:51 little unhandy 04:42:55 tho 04:43:12 Do US keyboards have any ½ key? 04:43:21 °§ 04:43:27 ups 04:43:45 on mac it's tricky to find 04:43:48 Well, Swedish ones have ½ on their § key. 04:44:02 Better use "ae"/"oe". 04:44:03 Robert, cept on powerbok where there's ° instead of 1/" 04:44:14 I can't even realize what should it mean. 04:44:23 asau, it's 1/2 sign 04:44:26 not umlaut 04:44:45 us kb dont have a key for 1/2 04:44:52 I was just thinking, you could use the 1/2 sign instead of 2/ just to fuck with americans. 04:44:55 Anyway, I can't guess. 04:45:00 Americans* 04:45:05 ^1/2 04:45:10 ;) 04:45:16 ^/2 04:45:20 Just like they did by using keys that are hard to type with Swedish keyboards. 04:45:31 Like ` ör ^ or ~ (worst of all...) 04:45:34 ^1-,5 04:45:40 It is -||- here. 04:45:42 or alias sqrt to 0.5 ^ 04:45:42 ~ = alt gr + ^ + space 04:45:45 ^1-,5 is nice sqertoor 04:46:04 anyone with a bit of math knows how to do roots 04:46:06 with power 04:46:25 : root inverse power ; 04:46:26 and anyone else dont need any other root but 1/2 :p 04:46:26 but not all coders do maths 04:46:36 there are linguistic programmers too, qFox 04:46:46 and i see that forth might gather them more 04:46:49 and they generally dont need other roots 04:46:51 that's why i got itnerested in the first 04:46:52 hand 04:47:27 sqrt is 1/2 anyways. 04:47:43 i like inverse power 04:48:01 it would require a float set though 04:48:10 (then again, so does root) 04:48:13 kinda.. 04:48:21 hmm 04:48:31 you shoudlnt depend on practises 04:48:49 forth is not mainstream language, so it shoudln be required to follow mainstream conventions 04:49:00 but you have possibility and freedom to try do it better 04:49:14 no not required, but i dont see a reason to go against it 04:49:25 there is no way forth could win if it copied used conventions 04:49:36 so only alternative is to try make it in better way 04:49:37 but it would make it easier to understand for a newby 04:49:52 i see great potential in root and power problemacy 04:49:59 lowering the treshhold for somebody to start with forth just a little 04:50:21 qFox, those who are newbies wont stay newbies when they code more 04:50:46 i know, but they are more prone to stay if they understand it faster 04:50:47 it is always possible to create it so that there was normal like library too 04:51:03 qFox, i doubt it's about power 04:51:12 well, yeah, but .. 04:51:12 :) 04:51:25 this has great possibility to win the other language 04:51:26 s 04:51:34 sqrt is 1/2 either way though. square root is a square root. 04:51:40 with creating brilliant sollution 04:51:46 not really a convention, its math. 04:51:49 BTW, I'm translating GNU SL's random number generators. 04:52:04 root should accept 2 arguments though. 04:52:12 Is anyone interested? 04:52:16 qFox, math doesnt use ^ neither sqrt but other conventions 04:52:19 (i'm not sure if that was the problem in the first place..?) 04:52:33 so why would you not use ^ ? 04:52:35 mur, math use ^ convention. 04:52:37 for power i mean 04:52:42 well 04:52:45 you miss the point 04:52:46 See, TeX. 04:52:57 :) 04:53:07 its not about making it harder but better 04:53:27 sq and ^are one function only in theory 04:53:40 having ^ and sqrt creates 2 different worllds 04:53:45 oh but i didnt mean that ^ is per default a sqrt 04:53:50 ^ is a root 04:53:56 doesnt have to be 1/2 04:54:14 eh 04:54:18 i didnt just say that 04:54:19 :\ 04:54:23 ^1/2 for square root? 04:54:28 ^ is power. meh. 04:54:42 ^{1/2} ? 04:54:43 well 04:54:50 a n ^ 04:54:58 and root: a n ^/ 04:55:23 everyone understands there is something between those 2 04:55:50 this is quick suggestion 04:56:06 you shoudlnt force people KNOW more maths 04:56:12 but USE the skills they already have 04:56:32 you could do a 1/2 ^ 04:56:43 but not all people know that squareroot is 1/2 04:56:48 well in all fairness. if they dont know more math, they are happy with SQRT that does 1/2 ^ 04:56:58 : SQRT .5 ^ ; 04:57:08 maybe true 04:57:36 consider linguistic creating some program to approximate vowels 04:57:38 : TRRT 1 3 / ^ ; 04:57:41 or something :p 04:57:55 hmm 04:57:56 this is bad btw, not using float will result in very wrong results 04:58:05 hmm 04:58:11 1 3 / ^ looks quite nice 04:58:20 maybe combining somehow yet to make it shorter? 04:58:28 3 1/ ^? 04:58:30 hmmm no 04:58:39 yeah, but you need to use the float set, or your results will not be close to true 04:58:41 3 /^ ? 04:58:58 3 swap1/^ :p 04:59:10 but that'll not be "obvious" to be a root 04:59:20 Why not "3 root"? 04:59:34 well it's not easy for languagae minded to understand the relation between power and squareroot 04:59:36 : square 2 ; : cubic 3 ; 04:59:40 but it can be made easier 04:59:50 like that trrt once they understand 04:59:56 : root ( n r -- n ) root ; 04:59:58 eh 05:00:21 : root ( n r -- n ) 1 swap / ^ ; 05:00:35 : root inverse power ; 05:00:42 : inverse 1 swap / ; 05:01:35 ok bbl 05:01:44 : root 1 s>f s>f f/ f^ f>s ; 05:01:46 :p 05:02:55 : \/~~~ root ; 05:03:36 \/~ 05:03:45 \/~| 05:04:01 \/~' 05:14:50 hmm 05:14:51 okay 05:14:56 soo.. 05:15:07 1 + 3 is much more brilliant than 1 3 + 05:15:09 but 05:15:21 forth shoudlnt take maths as utter bad that has to be had somehow 05:15:37 but it shoudl think rather better alternatives, how to make 1 3 + a power 05:15:45 rather than how to implement at all 05:16:56 1 +3 is where C for instance wins forth 100-0 05:17:03 but what comes to more complicated functions 05:17:10 the forth maintains the same structures 05:17:15 hah 05:17:22 you should start using ciforth ;) 05:17:25 it has denotations 05:17:36 "4 Squared" sounds much more nicer than "sqrt(4);" 05:17:45 doesnt it? 05:18:03 there you can turn +/*- into a denotation and do 4 *2 and it will execute 4 * 2 (provided, *2 isnt a word) 05:18:24 that'd be fihting against forth basic nature 05:18:28 but rpn is part of forth 05:18:30 it's nice in short clauses 05:18:40 oh i agree. i hated denotations. 05:18:42 but in complicated it woudl only complicate everything 05:19:09 it was nicely embedded in ciforth, and he used it quite nicely, but it went against classic forth imo 05:19:35 it's not importnatn to maintain somethign because it's like it's always been 05:19:47 but if it is basic rule, then it's good to maintain it so that it works better 05:20:11 well, forth is forth. if you want to "drasticly" alter something, it becomes a breed of forth, but no longer forth, imo 05:20:17 C > c++ 05:20:22 but consider this one again: 05:20:31 avg(4,4,2,42,42,42,424); 05:20:46 4 4 5 3 5 35 3 these 7 averaged 05:20:54 forth has potential in this kind of coding 05:21:01 hm 05:21:02 it can't beat in efficiency or traditions 05:21:11 you have the problem of not knowing the number of arguments 05:21:13 but it has a lot linguistic possibilities 05:21:17 unless its static (and it shouldnt be) 05:21:26 so either you need to count the depth of the stack (which is bad) 05:21:31 well 05:21:35 or you need to supply the number of numbers you're supplying (eh.. ;) 05:21:41 for very simple math, C looks better because it more closelely resembles algebra notation 05:21:42 like in previous These 3 = 3 arguments 05:21:46 averaged 05:21:47 function 05:21:58 but for more complex stuff, I preffer the way forth looks. 05:22:51 eg: 100 - ((x + y) * (x + y)) 05:22:53 well, for avg, you could do a check for 0 05:22:59 if 0 end of argument list 05:23:03 forth: 100 x y + dup * - 05:23:04 qFox, you can't 05:23:05 or something like that 05:23:11 would work for me :) 05:23:19 that's stupid:P 05:23:25 it would work 05:23:33 for words like avg 05:23:35 in scientifical maths the values try aim near 0 05:23:49 i know. i'm aware of the problems 05:23:53 otherwise use the largest number 05:23:59 like delta-variation list coudl be 0 ,5 ,004 0 -,3 05:24:00 w/e 05:24:00