00:00:00 --- log: started forth/04.09.29 02:54:20 --- join: qFox (C00K13S@82-169-140-229-mx.xdsl.tiscali.nl) joined #forth 02:55:55 Hoi :) 02:57:39 School, doei 03:26:37 --- join: Topaz (~top@sown-87.ecs.soton.ac.uk) joined #forth 03:48:16 --- join: crc (crc@44-pool1.ras11.nynyc-t.alerondial.net) joined #forth 03:50:20 --- quit: tgunr (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)) 05:17:31 --- nick: AldoBr -> JAldo 05:25:08 --- quit: crc (Client Quit) 07:16:15 --- join: madwork_ (~madgarden@derby.metrics.com) joined #forth 07:16:15 --- quit: madwork (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)) 07:26:31 --- quit: Topaz (Remote closed the connection) 07:51:12 --- join: Herkamire (~jason@h000094d30ba2.ne.client2.attbi.com) joined #forth 07:51:13 --- mode: ChanServ set +o Herkamire 08:52:36 * fridge yawns 08:52:40 so tired 08:52:55 been getting 4 or maybe 5 hours sleep each night 08:55:23 Fun. 08:55:27 I got one hour last night. 08:55:32 13 hours this night. :) 08:55:46 And I feel very good. 08:58:05 ahh 08:58:07 come weekend 08:58:14 I shall sleep at least 12 08:58:32 Hihi 08:58:42 I just noticed I have no classes tomorrow! :) 08:58:55 ..which means I'll use it to fuck up my sleeping habits again. 09:13:53 --- join: sch00l_ch1k3n (apache@11.198.216.81.dre.siw.siwnet.net) joined #forth 09:16:30 bad robert! 09:17:37 Yeah. :-( 09:19:54 :( 09:19:58 sad mad bad 09:20:09 had cad 09:20:30 but not lad. thats not correct word for this serie 09:27:20 is "initialism" a proper word? 09:27:38 it's in wikipedia but isn't listed in any dict.org dictionaries or aspell 09:27:55 dict says it's not. ;) 09:28:13 I trust dict more than myself. 09:28:22 Mostly because I don't speak English. 09:28:23 The first recorded use of the word initialism in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is in 1899 09:28:38 What does it mean? 09:28:41 you only type english? 09:28:49 it is similar to acronym 09:28:59 but by definitions 09:29:09 an acronym is pronouncable, eg NATO 09:29:09 Yes, I only type English. 09:29:19 whereas an initialism isn't, eg HTML 09:29:31 Oh, OK. 09:29:32 by some definitions 09:29:47 * Robert pets recursive acronyms. 09:29:54 * ianp slaps ercursive acronyms 09:29:57 rrrrrrr attractor not working 09:30:52 sin() is working beautifully with interpolation 09:31:03 but the attractor is just making two dinky starbursts 09:31:09 The Oxford English Dictionary Online is available to individuals by annual subscription for Â£195+VAT or by quarterly subscription for Â£50+VAT. 09:31:21 fridge: Hah. 09:31:22 haahahahahaahah 09:32:02 I think I'll stick to dict 09:32:35 :D 09:34:53 Herkamire: source? :) 09:42:38 : att-next-x ] y @ aa s* sin x @ bb s* cos - ; 09:42:38 : att-next-y ] x @ cc s* sin y @ dd s* cos - ; 09:42:38 : att-next ] att-next-x att-next-y y ! x ! ; 09:42:38 : attractor ] fb-clear 1000000 for att-plot att-next next ; 09:42:54 don't mind the ]s 09:45:05 i meant for the trig functoins :) 09:45:10 could you email? 09:47:21 oh, trig stuff is here: http://jason.herkamire.com:5000/svn/herkforth/blocks/184 09:48:05 seems to be clean. 09:48:43 I did a test which showed that two consecutive results from sin (such as 1022 sin VS 1023 sin) never differ by more than one 09:50:04 :) 09:50:45 so what's the deal with attractors? 09:51:10 in both my tests, it bipped around a little, then just started going back and forth between two points 09:51:36 could this be the result of inacuracy? 09:52:49 mmm... I should test my sin on negitive values 09:52:53 no idea. 09:53:13 maybe add some random scalers, to see what happens? 09:55:05 good idea 09:56:16 mmm... another possibility is that I'm not getting the parametrs into fixed point properly 10:01:19 no, that's right 10:06:16 :/ 10:06:23 anyway, I have to go to math now. 10:06:27 adios amigos! 10:06:52 /quit be back in a few hours... 10:06:58 --- quit: sch00l_ch1k3n ("be back in a few hours...") 10:11:20 well, I guess I gotta get to my business for the day 10:11:27 herkforth attractors can wait 10:15:41 --- join: Topaz (~top@sown-87.ecs.soton.ac.uk) joined #forth 10:18:31 Hi Topaz 11:00:16 lo 11:45:47 god. whoever invented these logic "tableaus" to prove logical assumption should be shot, unfortunatly he's already dead 11:45:53 but he should've been shot 11:46:14 "lets take something really really simple and make it really really complicated" 11:46:32 "then lets take this really really complicated thing, and make it unreadable, it will save time and space!!!" 11:46:40 asshole. 11:47:29 :D 11:47:37 * Robert knuffelt qFox een beetje. 11:47:43 That's what school is about. 11:47:44 seriously 11:47:57 the whole thing, fine, once you got it, i guess it makes sense 11:48:16 with a bit larger formula's a logic-table is much much quicker, and efficient, and obvious, but hey 11:48:37 but no, then they want to save space and time while writing, so they only write down what they changed on that specific step 11:48:58 requiring one to have 8meg of physical RAM to remember wtf somebody did 10 steps ago 11:49:15 fuck it. 11:49:20 so whats up here 11:49:21 :) 11:49:51 oh really? 11:49:52 Hmm.. not much. 11:49:56 thats intrest.. ah 11:49:56 :p 11:50:07 I'm writing en essay, quoting Jeff Fox in it. :P 11:50:28 this was not a good day for me. and it started so well with me making a semi-exam pretty well 11:50:43 i feel like breaking something 11:50:57 * Topaz hands qFox an egg 11:51:00 pity everything is either already broken, or not to be broken, or unbreakable :( 11:51:08 thanks. 11:51:15 Robert> whats it about? besides jeff fox? 11:51:20 Bloatware. 11:51:35 My day started with sleeping 13 hours, then almost failing a simple math exam. 11:52:04 i need a cigarrette 11:52:43 oeh. dont forget compuserve 11:52:49 you can have my DUTCH copy of it too! 11:53:06 i guess now is not really a good time to promote their software though 11:53:08 ;) 11:53:24 * qFox will shut up and start on his math. 11:54:52 --- quit: ayrnieu ("...") 11:54:55 Heh. 12:02:12 --- join: madgarden_ (~madgarden@Kitchener-HSE-ppp3576798.sympatico.ca) joined #forth 12:04:33 --- quit: qFox (sendak.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) 12:04:33 --- quit: madgarden (sendak.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) 12:20:58 --- join: qFox (C00K13S@82-169-140-229-mx.xdsl.tiscali.nl) joined #forth 12:20:58 --- join: madgarden (~madgarden@Kitchener-HSE-ppp3576798.sympatico.ca) joined #forth 12:21:30 wearing hats gives me a headache 12:21:33 how strange 12:23:44 then stop wearing hats! 12:24:02 just wear -one- hat! 12:26:38 --- quit: madgarden (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 12:35:07 --- join: Teratogen (leontopod@intertwingled.net) joined #forth 12:35:16 hallo! 12:35:23 whoa, it's slava 12:45:34 Heh, hi. 12:45:48 The Minix forther. :) 12:47:32 Whee! RPC word declarations: 12:47:32 3 remote: lcdTextOut. ( "string" x y -- ) 12:47:32 0 remote: ClearKeyMap. ( -- ) 12:47:32 0 remote: GotAllBaseKeys? ( -- result ) 12:48:02 RPC? 12:48:10 Yes. 12:48:16 --- nick: madwork_ -> madwork 12:48:26 What is RPC? 12:48:33 remote prodcedure call 12:48:33 Remote Procedure Call 12:48:39 Ah 12:48:47 What are you working with? 12:48:59 Win32, WinCE, Forthy. 12:49:47 RPC always makes me cringe 12:49:59 Working on an automated test system for embedded devices. 12:50:39 Oh, this RPC is fun. I have set up a Forthy server that provides a firmware interface wordset. 12:51:15 You connect to it via telnet and poke around. The automated test system makes its "RPC" calls this way. 12:52:23 the cringe is just from all the security issues 12:52:35 Basically, it sends "COMMAND .S CLEAR" to the server, and it responds with the stack contents, OK, and :> (which is the user prompt) signifying the end of the transaction. Then the client side EVALUATEs this output and acquires the results. 12:54:47 Security is not really a concern under isolated test conditions. 12:56:13 hi, Robert 12:58:16 It would be fun to experiment with... I'd like a large cluster of small but fast CPUs :) 13:00:08 :D 13:02:15 Imagine 1024 Forth chips doing > 1000 MIPS each. 13:02:48 Some algorithm that requires little data transfer, but lots of processing power. 13:03:16 That would be a REALLY powerful computer, but still affordable. 13:08:56 is that the kind of setup you need for brute forcing crypto? 13:09:51 lisp workstations had a forth fep I think 13:09:52 built in 13:17:45 Fep? 13:18:31 fridge: I guess that depends on what crypto. It's not like current crypto designers are unaware that there are such machines. 13:18:53 fridge: But it's a good example of what to use it for. 13:31:01 Teratogen, fep fep fap fap 13:40:45 --- join: sch00l_ch1k3n (apache@11.198.216.81.dre.siw.siwnet.net) joined #forth 13:51:46 --- quit: sch00l_ch1k3n ("CGI:IRC (EOF)") 14:03:33 --- quit: Topaz ("Leaving") 14:21:34 --- quit: qFox ("this quit is sponsored by somebody!") 14:35:16 --- join: paintcan (~wossname@rn-v1w5a06.uwaterloo.ca) joined #forth 15:24:01 --- join: crc (crc@41-pool1.ras11.nynyc-t.alerondial.net) joined #forth 15:52:48 --- join: tgunr (~davec@17.255.100.53) joined #forth 15:56:05 hi 15:59:46 --- nick: t3h_ch1k3n -> s1ck_ch1k3n 16:03:17 who is s1ck_ch1k3n? 16:04:18 the owner of bespin.org 16:04:28 that guy 16:04:45 futhin 16:04:51 ? 16:04:54 really? 16:05:13 I dunno 16:05:18 * fridge takes stabs in the dark 16:05:46 * crc does a whois... 16:05:56 And it appears to be: arke 16:06:52 * crc wonders why arke changed his nick 16:07:03 Hey 16:07:21 How can I get a character from the kb without echoing (and without curses)? 16:07:38 * s1ck_ch1k3n = arke 16:07:48 Robert: termcap :) 16:07:55 arke: why did you change your nick? 16:08:04 Robert: poll the keyboard controller directly 16:08:06 :-) 16:09:02 Heh. 16:09:14 What's termcap? 16:09:28 Hrm, curses. 16:10:55 I'm thinking of changing the way conditionals work in RetroForth 16:11:34 "x y Robert: or terminfo. isforth has a routine to turn off buffering and echo 16:11:48 crc: NOO!! 16:11:52 Why not? 16:11:58 (I know it's not standard) 16:12:48 This is the big debate over the 7.4 release. Half of the main contributors prefer one, and half prefer the other 16:13:00 I think it would be confusing. 16:13:04 Why? 16:13:18 When I see "x y <" I think "x < y". 16:13:40 But I guess " Maybe "ifbelow" or "if<" would look better. 16:14:17 Since " Just like 0 = vs. 0= 16:14:42 crc: I would say keep it the standard way. 16:14:54 crc: theres no improvement, and you'd have to changef alot of code 16:15:10 s1ck_ch1k3n: actually I wouldn't have to change a lot of code 16:15:23 very little code for RetroForth uses conditionals at this point 16:16:12 And 99% of the code that does uses the "y < x" form 16:18:56 At this point I'm not certain which way to go... 16:20:28 * crc doesn't care about the "standards" 16:36:59 --- nick: s1ck_ch1k3n -> t3h_ch1k3n 16:38:20 arke: what' 16:38:33 what's with the t3h_ch1k3n nick? 16:38:58 i like it 16:39:12 is this one going to stick around for a while? 16:40:05 yes 16:41:15 ok 17:01:38 --- quit: tgunr (Remote closed the connection) 17:06:47 --- quit: paintcan ("agh the bats they are everywhere") 17:07:09 --- quit: crc (Client Quit) 18:34:42 --- quit: madgarden_ ("*frotz*") 18:38:11 --- quit: Teratogen ("SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER") 19:20:55 --- join: madgarden_ (~madgarden@Kitchener-HSE-ppp3576798.sympatico.ca) joined #forth 19:20:55 --- nick: madgarden_ -> madgarden 19:51:12 --- quit: Robert (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 19:52:10 --- join: Robert (~snofs@c-bf5a71d5.17-1-64736c10.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se) joined #forth 20:02:01 hi 20:02:29 i just thought of a really cool forth word 20:03:04 : ifvalid compile dup [compile] if compile drop ; immediate 20:03:11 yyyy/mm/dd.hh:mm:ss ? 20:03:36 ? 20:03:43 Sorry, just a guess. Way off I see. 20:03:52 hehe 20:03:56 you like it? 20:04:02 i use that construct all the time 20:04:06 "dup if drop" 20:04:19 maybe should even code an asm version for *gasp* optimization 20:05:04 isn't that kinda like ?dup 20:05:33 not really. 20:05:57 sdll, kinda 20:06:00 It's like an inverse ?dup 20:06:02 except that mine is cooler :) 20:06:15 : ?dup dup if dup then ; 20:08:25 What's an example of how you regularly use ifvalid? 20:10:34 allocate ifvalid abort" Moo." then .... 20:10:53 that has the wrong sense 20:11:02 yeah 20:11:04 thought that too 20:11:09 should be ifnotvalid 20:11:24 allocate not if abort then 20:12:11 that was a bad example anyway. 20:15:18 ?if 20:17:53 i would prefer notif or ~if 20:18:12 ?if doesnt suggest an inverted sense on the if 20:19:06 0=? 20:19:10 not? 20:19:53 0= is NOT the same as not 20:20:07 only in the freekin 79 standard where some moron had their head up their ass 20:20:12 0= is a test for ZERO 20:20:18 NOT is a logical inversion 20:20:27 True. 20:20:41 I was thinking more English than logical there. My bad. 20:20:55 :) 20:21:00 Speaking of English, how about... 20:21:02 wot? 20:21:03 ;) 20:21:06 lol 20:21:22 hrm maybe forth could also use a wtf definition 20:21:27 foobar wot? abort" Moo." then 20:21:39 5 10 = wtf ..... then 20:21:47 I was just thinking it needed a WTF? 20:21:52 And a WTF! 20:21:53 lol 20:22:15 but please... no LOL definition 20:22:17 puleeze 20:22:19 That reminds me of our script kiddie Forth from a while back. ;) 20:22:24 heh 20:23:36 I have a word for "dup if drop exit then" 20:23:59 What is it? 20:24:12 ?exit 20:24:13 wait... that would either exit, or leave a zero on the stack 20:24:23 or not quite 20:24:33 I don't have that 20:24:36 because if the above doesnt exit it doesnt eat the parameter either 20:25:22 right, so it either exits, or leaves a zero on the stack 20:25:50 I have a word for "dup 0= if drop exit then" 20:25:55 I call it 0; 20:26:54 ?dup ?exit 20:28:05 mine exits on a zero 20:29:35 0?; 20:30:08 0; seems more like "put a zero on the stack and exit" to me. 20:33:59 * das agrees with madgarden on 0; 20:34:22 ~?exit :) 20:35:39 could be 0if; 20:36:25 ?dup?exit eh... a bit verbose 20:36:30 but I left the "if" out of all my conditional exits, except if; 20:37:12 do you have an optimizer? just optimize ?dup ?exit to call your word. 20:37:44 or inline it. however it works. 20:38:41 does ?exit exit on a zero? 20:39:21 eh no... that would not ?exit or 0= ?exit ?dup 0= ?exit 20:39:33 a bit wordy 20:40:33 I've seen some people define -exit 20:41:05 hrm. 20:41:09 i dont mind it wordy 20:41:15 as long as its not _Excessibely_ so 20:41:51 that means, I don't want Gtk_Create_New_Window_From_Old_Context_Which_Monkey_Typed_Up 20:42:03 Or even _excessively_. 20:42:10 I'd rather have 20:42:25 Gtk_CreateWindowFromOldMonkeyContext 20:42:30 although even that isverbose :) 20:42:31 cant you optimize "?dup 0= ?exit" to just perform the 0; behavior? 20:42:53 why do c coders insist on making sentences of function names 20:43:28 das: I suppose, if you wanted to 20:43:33 It helps document the function. 20:43:33 I don't have an optomizer atm 20:43:52 I440r: There nothing wrong with verbosity. But some people take it to the next level. Or the previous level. 20:44:10 i think being concise is preferable 20:44:26 like do you have ANY problems what so ever reading "fetch" when you see @ ? 20:44:28 the obvious con to verbosity is having to type it all 20:44:30 i rest my case 20:44:47 t3h_ch1k3n: CreateWindowFromMonkey is a nice one. CreateWindowFromMonkeyContextOfBlah is too verbose. CreatWinMon is too concise. 20:45:03 thats why im experimenting renaming and/or/xor/not/mod etc 20:45:29 yep. 20:45:36 how many people have liked it so far? 20:45:50 counting me ? 20:45:58 no 20:45:59 one that admits that it doesnt bother him 20:45:59 :) 20:46:13 so far only ONE person in here has objected 20:46:13 who was that? 20:46:16 * t3h_ch1k3n is just curous 20:46:17 tathi :) 20:46:20 oh, and me 20:46:22 :) 20:46:26 ehh 20:46:29 no 20:46:30 yeah, I objected 20:46:31 :) 20:46:32 you ARE the one :P 20:46:43 I htink kc5tja too though. 20:46:46 highlander! 20:47:06 Well, I'm taking off... 20:47:09 bye das 20:47:11 t3h_ch1k3n is arke, not tathi 20:47:13 nite dw2ight :) 20:47:21 Herkamire, i know. 20:47:23 arke objected 20:47:28 tathi didnt :P 20:47:47 later I440r 20:48:06 das tell mike and ken i said hi :) 20:48:29 hey try get ken in here :) 20:48:49 --- quit: Fractal (No route to host) 20:49:05 alright, I will try... Ok. :) 20:49:25 :) 20:52:25 I440r: how would you name two words which flag code sections which need review before release? 20:53:39 two words ? 20:53:43 yes.' 20:53:45 start and end of section ? 20:53:50 yes. 20:53:54 review: and ;review ? 20:54:05 what would they actually DO tho 20:54:08 neat. 20:54:19 yeah... how would you implement them??? ;) 20:54:24 hehe 20:54:37 REVIEW( 20:54:37 )REVIEW 20:54:46 madgarden: beter :) 20:54:50 they might be useable as syntax highlighters in a forth editor 20:54:51 better* 20:55:13 i prefer > and < to ( and ) 20:55:13 the point of them is that when its being built under certain circumstances, it prints warnings or errors 20:55:14 20:55:23 the parenthases make it look like a comment 20:55:24 Herkamire: hehe, thats even better :) 20:55:38 * I440r thwaos Herkamire with a FORTH manual 20:55:39 lol 20:55:45 :) 20:56:05 actually, those two words I plan to implement for when I'm coding Forth 20:56:06 i use to switch into and out of headerless mode in isforth 20:56:16 its like the words POINT to where the headerfull words are 20:56:20 headers are thataway 20:56:22 I440r: why not HEADERS ON and HEADERS OFF? 20:56:29 Sounded to me like REVIEW was a comment... 20:56:41 madgarden: no, not quute. 20:57:08 because headers> and they arent just a variable flag to the compiler telling it weather to produce headers or not 20:57:37 well, i guess it depends on implementration. 20:57:44 this way my headerless extension doesnt rely on something already built into the creation mechanism 20:57:51 thats the way ptgmt does it, and i haven't found a better way yet. 20:58:04 that i personally like :) 20:58:22 has arke studied the way isforth does it ? 20:58:35 well, you just explained it to me 20:58:39 ALL the words needed to created headerless words are themselves headerless :) 20:59:12 the words are actually headerfull aliases to some headerless words of the same name :) 20:59:41 you've got meta-headerlessing headerlessing words, yet you haven't managed to metacompile yet? :P 21:00:53 :) 21:01:06 its all magic 21:01:20 ik need an assembler before i can metacompile :( 21:01:30 and im terrified of the assembler code i gotta write 21:02:27 well if you didnt make it so damn hard on yourself 21:02:38 :P 21:02:49 no. postfix isnt the issue 21:02:56 i got that part all fully worked out 21:03:08 and ive proved it works by writing an 8051 assembler 21:03:19 its the freekin instruction encoding that scares me 21:03:36 ... 21:03:45 * I440r quakes in his socks 21:04:09 i suggest you take a look at pygmyforth 21:04:19 it has a very elegant 16-bit x86 assembler 21:04:26 you dont need alot for the assembler., you know? :) 21:07:07 i dont like the way pygmy does some things 21:07:15 like what? 21:07:27 i DO like the way F.S. codes SOME things tho 21:07:29 i dont like is push and pop words 21:07:33 they are just ALL wrong 21:07:34 ick 21:07:47 i know where tehy originate 21:07:55 --- quit: jim (Remote closed the connection) 21:08:30 i did like the logic he used in interpret tho 21:08:34 i borrowed that :) 21:08:56 test for immediate flag and compile/interpret state 21:08:58 --- join: crc (crc@169-pool1.ras11.nynyc-t.alerondial.net) joined #forth 21:09:03 ctally prefer it :) 21:09:06 but keep going 21:09:24 i cant remember everything i didnt like about it 21:09:25 wellk 21:09:27 blocks 21:09:27 ick 21:09:35 blokcs are soooooo last century 21:10:04 I like blocks 21:10:32 they fuck up your sources big time 21:10:36 Why? 21:10:49 thers NO way to have source and comment togethere and still have enough room 21:11:19 theonlywaytocodeinblockfilesistocrameverythingupasclosetogetherasyoucanmakeit 21:11:30 * crc doesn't do that 21:11:35 then you 21:11:40 only 21:11:41 get a 21:11:45 small 21:11:46 ammount of 21:11:49 source 21:11:50 in each 21:12:04 block 21:12:04