00:00:00 --- log: started forth/06.07.28 00:10:49 --- join: LOOP-HOG (n=jason@66.213.202.50) joined #forth 00:30:46 --- part: LOOP-HOG left #forth 00:33:45 : /at-white ( c-addr u -- ) drop dup begin 1+ dup c@ bl = until over - ; 00:52:03 2dup s" " search and nip - 00:56:12 neat; I'd figured more complexity in using SEARCH for this 01:03:26 morning folks 01:05:36 morning, Quiznos 01:05:47 hey 01:08:15 --- join: Quartus_ (n=Quartus_@209.167.5.1) joined #forth 01:08:21 Q 01:11:14 --- quit: Quartus_ (Client Quit) 01:22:43 --- quit: virl (Remote closed the connection) 01:35:33 this is bewildering. 01:37:13 oh... nevermind. 01:38:49 ACTION PRIVMSG #Forth :I accidentally cargo-cults an RDROP -- which explains why a word phrase had completely different effects interactively versus in a word 01:39:43 your forth isnt state-smart? 01:40:10 the rdrop occured within a word of the word-phrase , not in the word-phrase 01:40:30 k, i think? 01:41:38 I had: : /at-white ( c-addr u -- c-addr' u' ) drop dup begin 1+ dup c@ bl <= until rdrop over - ; ,and couldn't figure out why : skip-white ( c-addr u -- c-addr' u' ) 2dup /at-white nip 1+ /string ; -- why the definition of that word only worked interactively 01:42:52 why "drop dup" instead of over? 01:43:10 if /at-white doesnt need u, then why provide it? 01:43:11 DROP DUP and OVER do different things... 01:43:32 over = a b a 01:43:35 it operates on a string, and returns a string. 01:43:39 yes, which is not DROP DUP 01:43:47 i know they do diff things, but why send u if not needed? 01:43:56 because the word operates on a string. 01:44:03 s" hello there" /at-white 01:44:08 ./at-white doesnt need u 01:44:18 yes, hence its immediate DROP 01:44:26 so why send it? 01:44:28 however, its INTERFACE /does/ need u 01:44:34 because it operates on strings! 01:44:36 nah, that's a wash 01:44:47 /at-white juse needs a ptr. nothing more. 01:45:29 and why `dup c@' instead of count? 01:46:06 no, it needs a string. As the entire point of the word is to operate on a string and return another string. That it discards the u is arbitrary -- a feature of its implementation. I've no value right now in a word that takes a pointer and produces a string by whitespace at that location. 01:46:22 because DUP C@ and COUNT do different things 01:46:35 i'm pointing out that the word is not well factored and does unnecessary things 01:46:48 oh, what's the purpose of /at-white? 01:46:54 tell me that first 01:47:36 no, you're pointing out that an arbitrary feature of the implementation of this word means that I should give up on the whole point of the word, and instead implement some other word (and alas, /use/ that word, spreading DROP noise throughout my program, only to need to remove all that when I profile and discover that quartus's version is much faster)... 01:48:38 ayrnieu i'm not calling anything "arbitrary". i'm saying that bc the definition begins with "drop" 01:48:40 oops 01:48:58 ayrnieu i'm not calling anything "arbitrary". i'm saying that bc the definition begins with "drop", that means that the provision of u is unnecesary. 01:49:12 "cut at white[space]". It takes a string and alters the count to elid the remaining part of the string beginning at whitespace, which is incidentally guaranteed to exist. 01:49:14 so the word isnt efficient. that's all 01:49:34 so it's fig's trim? 01:49:50 I don't know what FIG's TRIM is. If you say so. 01:50:13 iirc, trim adjusted a string to remove leading spaces 01:50:26 that's something else, then. 01:50:30 why? 01:50:39 ... because it does something else. 01:50:45 k 01:51:57 : trim ( ca -- ca) count 1+ being c@ SPC == if 1+ fi again ; 01:52:04 s/being/begin 01:53:28 I'd be tempted to call that /LEADING , by analogy of /TRAILING 01:53:38 that's a better name 01:53:48 well, or -LEADING by analogy of -TRAILING 01:53:52 analogous is better 01:53:54 sure 01:54:16 the - reminds one of the other word 01:57:17 bbl, we'll chat :) 01:57:30 I also have to leave. 01:57:36 stay well 01:57:43 gone 03:04:57 --- join: Raystm2- (n=NanRay@adsl-69-149-35-170.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 03:19:53 --- quit: Raystm2 (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 03:21:03 --- join: snowrichard (n=richard@adsl-69-155-177-154.dsl.lgvwtx.swbell.net) joined #forth 03:21:15 --- quit: snowrichard (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 04:44:08 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-1pool46-62.nas30.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 04:58:11 --- join: virl (n=virl@chello062178085149.1.12.vie.surfer.at) joined #forth 05:17:24 --- join: Raystm2 (n=NanRay@adsl-69-149-53-80.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 05:24:25 --- join: tathi (n=josh@pdpc/supporter/bronze/tathi) joined #forth 05:31:11 --- quit: Raystm2- (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 05:35:02 --- quit: PoppaVic ("Pulls the pin...") 06:03:44 --- join: vatic (n=charlest@pool-162-83-254-201.ny5030.east.verizon.net) joined #forth 06:08:58 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-1pool46-211.nas30.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 06:11:39 --- join: Ray_work (n=Raystm2@199.227.227.26) joined #forth 06:27:08 Another visitor. Stay awhile. Stay forever! 06:28:03 madwork: OK, Beckett! 06:29:26 Destroy him, my robots. 06:31:14 eruh? 06:32:01 madwork: was Godot a robot? 06:33:14 He fell down a hole, or was zapped. I forget which. 06:36:53 * vatic thinks: what a wait... Battery's failing... 07:01:46 --- quit: Raystm2 (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 07:03:34 --- join: Raystm2 (n=NanRay@adsl-68-93-114-190.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 07:40:14 --- join: nighty_ (n=nighty@66-163-28-100.ip.tor.radiant.net) joined #forth 08:34:50 MAN, that was painful 08:38:00 --- quit: vatic ("Chatzilla 0.9.71 [Firefox 1.5.0.5/2006072310]") 08:39:52 PoppaVic, another anal probe? 08:39:58 --- quit: tathi ("leaving") 08:40:08 madwork: similar anyway 08:42:27 trying to create structs that can have lists of structs that may have lists and reference prior lists.. it's "fun". 08:49:41 --- join: segher (n=segher@dslb-084-056-188-188.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 08:58:15 --- quit: segher_ (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 09:58:31 Hmm, Google open source project hosting: http://code.google.com/hosting/ 09:58:41 Discuss. 10:03:09 fascinating. 10:03:30 in other news, I've decided to once-and-for-all fuck reddit and find something else to follow. 10:03:38 WTF is reddit? 10:03:48 a website. 10:04:04 Tech news or something? 10:04:16 they immediately modded this down: http://reddit.com/info/bf4b/comments ; I am wroth. 10:05:17 something like that. I think it owes a lot to Paul Graham readership. 10:26:37 --- quit: PoppaVic (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 10:26:39 ayrnieu what did they do? "modded"? 10:27:52 immediately voted it down, so almost nobody sees it. reddit has universally available, anonymous voting. 10:28:18 anyway, that's a wonderful paper. 10:32:00 ayrnieu i dont get your question; the tree doesnt "cast a shadow" except in vernacular parlance. the shadow is a result of light directed at and blocked by the tree. the tree just stands there and blocks light; it does "cast" anything. :)~ 10:32:16 :) 10:33:15 that is assuming that light actually _is_ something. you could just as well state that the absence of light is the "real" thing 10:33:37 light always has a source 10:33:47 darkness is not a source 10:33:53 it is a lack of light. 10:34:25 and where do i vote on reddit? 10:38:34 Bushmills let's continue 10:39:13 light is illumination; trees are objects that are either light-emitting or light-blocking/absorbing. 10:39:56 segher i mean 10:40:37 vim 7 has a built in spellchecker :) 10:40:54 light doesn't always have a source, either. you might want to check your physics books heh 10:40:55 that's not a question, Quiznos. It's a link to a paper on computation. 10:41:22 ty; what kind of computation? 10:41:35 read the paper! 10:41:46 i'm unable to read pdf's 10:41:52 non-gui mode here 10:43:57 segher there is always a source of light; it might be unidentified, unknown, but there is always a source emitting it. 10:44:42 JasonWoof ty for the notice 10:45:07 one of the nice things I found when I re-installed linux on my home computer 10:45:19 sweet 10:46:03 pdftotext works ok 10:46:16 k 10:57:22 quiznos: lovely theory, but you have no idea what you are talking about 10:57:43 segher actually i do. what i wrote regarding light is scriptural 10:58:11 --- join: docl (n=docl@74-36-210-133.dr01.hmdl.id.frontiernet.net) joined #forth 10:58:22 hehe 10:58:25 and it applies equally to the light of God as well as the light of stellar objects and is not limited to either of those sources 10:58:28 :) 10:58:49 good rebuke, i can't argue with that :-) 10:59:00 not a rebuke at all :) disclosure 10:59:07 :-) 10:59:13 to me, light is all radiated frequencies 10:59:26 not limted to the visible spectrum. 11:00:07 every thing created vibrates. (i think Peter wrote "groans") 11:00:13 or maybe it was Paul. 11:01:35 see, i dont have a problem being scientific *and* scriptural, good science compliments scripture. 11:01:37 but that was referring to the sin of mankind... 11:01:45 it's not limited to that, docl 11:02:01 light is light. the only distinction is the source of the light. 11:02:01 which the existence of light precedes 11:02:19 God spoke first then it all came into existence. 11:02:27 --- quit: ayrnieu (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 11:02:37 so the Word predates all else :) 11:02:43 yes 11:03:21 becareful with that statement tho. unwarranted textual replacement leads right to confusion and unsupportable dogma ;) 11:03:30 lol 11:03:37 like that round-about ? 11:03:39 heh 11:03:56 "word" is logos so I'm assuming it means logic is the foundation of all things 11:04:11 logos includes the concept of logic 11:04:21 a better english word is "reason" 11:04:35 to reason about something, evaluate 11:04:42 is there reason that is non-logical? 11:04:53 sure 11:05:00 reason is the thinking process 11:05:17 spirits do it, man does it 11:05:44 so the process of logical evaluation, as opposed to the end result? 11:06:24 reason would lead to a conclusion of that which is being evaluated. 11:06:39 reasoning 11:10:10 logic as a process doesn't produce motivation, but it tends to uncover motivations, which are emotional in nature. 11:10:54 sure it can produce; good logic usually leads to succes 11:11:17 desire for success is an emotion, isn't it? 11:11:35 desire need not be ad hom based 11:11:52 as it is writ, god will give us the desires of our heart 11:12:15 perhaps reason/logos incorporates both logic and desire 11:12:34 asking god for something then believing to recieve that thing builds desire for it. it's a hope 11:14:37 yeah. faith, hope, and love are all closely related. 11:14:45 yes 11:17:04 I think part of the key to attaining greater levels of these is eliminating useless competing desires, such as those caused by addictions, fear, hate, etc. 11:18:08 well, fear includes hate (torment) and are not contemplated within love; which btw is NOT an emotion but a decision. 11:18:16 "love" is a command. 11:19:00 hmm not sure I agree that it's not an emotion as well. 11:19:18 ok, lemme rephrase 11:19:56 love is something that acts foundationally to other positive emotions. 11:20:01 when Dad is discussing Love, he's not discussing the emotion nor the lust of the body (eros nor porn) 11:20:37 one has to decide to love; now go back and read 1co 13 with "decide to love" in the fore of your mind. 11:21:26 love is mental and spiritual a state of being. whether you call it an emotion or not, it certainly affects emotions. 11:22:07 there are alot of greek words that are translated to "love"; one must be mindful of which greek words underlies the english usage 11:22:43 philo, eros, pornografic, agapao are the major ones 11:23:19 in 1co13 agapao might be translated "charity" depending on which translation one reads 11:23:40 btw, it is pride to refuse "charity"/agapao.love 11:24:03 * docl has heard most of this before, just so you know :) 11:24:10 good; 11:24:24 it's also good to be reminded :) and i'm reminding meself 11:24:28 there's charity and there's condecending pity, and they are not the same 11:24:34 true 11:24:50 some people give to the poor out of the latter, and it is not good for their souls. 11:25:14 but then the issue is whether the giver evidenced their condescension 11:25:22 right 11:25:27 if they kept it to themselves then that's one thing. 11:25:47 Lazurus eating crumbs under the table was experiencing condecension, to be sure :) 11:25:55 and OTOH, as paul wrote, he didnt care why someone taught the word, whether of love or "spite" 11:25:56 (from the rich man) 11:26:08 yea 11:26:23 only so long as the teaching was accurate 11:26:36 but then there might be wolves at the podium 11:27:54 * docl thinks forth should be a required skill for all theologians :) 11:27:58 heh 11:28:09 well, it works for me thinking in forth 11:28:14 i gotta go. bbl 11:28:17 see ya 11:28:20 later 11:28:22 gone 11:40:17 --- join: ayrnieu (i=julian@pdpc/supporter/sustaining/ayrnieu) joined #forth 11:51:17 --- quit: ayrnieu ("incremential changes are nice, but this part is a bit deep. /me makes it a VALUE") 11:51:50 --- join: ayrnieu (i=julian@pdpc/supporter/sustaining/ayrnieu) joined #forth 11:56:04 (although it doesn't help much when you define the VALUE but never get around to using it in the definition) 12:01:50 --- quit: ayrnieu (Remote closed the connection) 12:02:26 --- join: ayrnieu (i=julian@pdpc/supporter/sustaining/ayrnieu) joined #forth 12:07:24 --- quit: ayrnieu (Remote closed the connection) 12:11:20 --- join: ayrnieu (i=julian@pdpc/supporter/sustaining/ayrnieu) joined #forth 12:11:36 --- quit: ayrnieu (Remote closed the connection) 12:12:50 --- join: cleverdra (i=julian@ip68-13-114-58.om.om.cox.net) joined #forth 12:13:38 (this is ayrnieu) 12:14:31 I've some bugs still that come from my handling of tasker.fs ; one of them kills me when I join multiple channels, somehow :-/ 12:14:42 anyway. pizza. 12:30:28 --- join: snoopy_1711 (i=snoopy_1@dslb-084-058-143-194.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 12:38:53 --- quit: Snoopy42 (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)) 12:38:55 --- nick: snoopy_1711 -> Snoopy42 12:40:03 --- quit: cleverdra (Remote closed the connection) 12:40:36 --- join: ayrnieu (i=julian@pdpc/supporter/sustaining/ayrnieu) joined #forth 13:05:07 --- join: ravenEx (n=a@87.252.242.16) joined #forth 14:25:41 --- quit: Shain (Remote closed the connection) 14:33:51 Boy, I hope nobody thinks Quiznos is me, spouting off with a bizarre intermixing of Christian dogma and Forth. 14:36:05 oh and I thought it was you ;-P 14:37:37 what? it wasn't you? darn :P 14:38:03 heh 14:39:26 just kidding, he was way too open-minded to be you :-} 14:40:22 Ha. 14:40:35 "Open-minded Christian" doesn't parse well. 14:41:24 you would say that... 14:41:28 I would. 14:44:43 --- join: Raystm2- (n=NanRay@ppp-70-243-217-234.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 14:46:48 christian dogma? christian? ehm, Quartus you have a problem with religions, right? 14:49:58 I have a problem with mixing religious dogma with programming. 14:50:25 I can't imagine how that should look like. 14:50:36 Scroll up. 14:50:59 Quartus, aren't you adept of zen-buddhism or smth like that? 14:51:00 "oh my god! don't hurt ':' because it's jesus!" 14:51:16 ravenEx, what would give you that idea? 14:51:36 you are on #forth) 14:52:35 So are you. 14:52:56 yeah how can a forther not be a zen adept? 14:53:05 mmm, right. just in case:) 14:54:02 in programming, you are the Creator. now look at the theological consequences of that 14:54:37 creator in the finite sense. 14:54:47 Author. And 'author', in fact. At best. 14:55:02 also, in a sense the code's logic preexisted your discovery of it 14:55:06 comparing zen-buddhism with forth, ehm.. comparing an old philosophy with a dogma with something useful and a philosophy, sick 14:55:11 author is the coding part. creator is the programming part. 14:55:50 Not so. Authoring is the act of composing the written work, not the act of writing it on the page. 14:56:12 it's both.. 14:56:15 virl, do zen have a dogma? i haven't found any 14:56:58 I don't know any author which doesn't write it on the page(or into a wordprocessor) 14:57:21 ravenEx, well, I don't know I simply assumed it. sry. 14:57:21 well buddhists have a historical figure and tend to certain rules/beliefs that could be called dogmas. zen in popular culture is not necessarily the same thing. 14:57:39 weekend~ 14:58:05 e.g. reincarnation, karma, spirit guides 14:58:44 not things a forther is necessarily inclined towards... 14:59:07 --- quit: Ray_work ("User pushed the X - because it's Xtra, baby") 15:00:21 Yes, there's authoring, and writing. You can write without authoring. Authoring is usually followed by writing. 15:00:40 rather obtuse semantic difference 15:00:45 back. 15:00:56 writing can be used synonymously with authoring, and usually is. 15:00:58 Really? Writing is writing anything, making paper dirty on one or both sides with words. 15:01:19 you are saying that "writing" always refers to transcription. 15:01:26 language is messier than that. 15:01:29 but the main idea of buddhism is to free yourself from all this reincarnation stuff, so do forthers free themselves from various unnecessary things 15:01:53 Yeah, to write is to transcribe words. 15:02:08 --- quit: Raystm2 (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 15:02:21 Quartus: when a person is a professional "writer", what does this imply? 15:02:38 That he writes professionally. 15:02:54 define professionally 15:02:58 For money. 15:03:03 generally that they are an author of some kind, and makes money thereby. 15:03:08 --- join: I440r (n=mark4@24-177-235-246.dhcp.gnvl.sc.charter.com) joined #forth 15:03:16 well, I think that's a stupid definitions 15:03:43 often authors that publish online describe themselves as writers. it sounds less pretentious. 15:03:46 'making anything for money and you can call that dumb ass a professional' 15:04:31 yeah there's a dual meaning to "professional". one is "making money" and the other is "doing a good job". 15:04:41 Sure, 'writer' defines a certain breed of 'author', but see above. I was countering the 'creator is the programming part' aspect of what segher said. He suggested that authoring applied to 'coding', which I take to mean the typing out of the code, whereas 'programming', which I'm guessing means the thinking-up of the code, is the 'creating' part, maing a programmer a Creator in some bizarro-world religious way. 15:05:36 I think someone is only a professional when he does a good job 15:05:54 "professional" can be a cquiality of Honor 15:06:00 equality 15:06:03 oops 15:06:04 quality 15:06:09 Contrasting professional with amateur, professional means for (presumably financial) recompense, where as amateur is 'for love', which is the root of the word. 15:06:42 * Quiznos grops his chest near his hearts and swoons, amateur 15:06:46 heh 15:06:52 yeah there's a reason real-world language puts computer languages to shame 15:07:02 yep 15:08:12 that's one thing i like about forth, you arent limited to the lexicon of words you can use. 15:08:19 virl: that's what is known as a connotation 15:10:22 it's true that segher was using "creator" in a way that's more confusing than not. but it didn't seem to violate any semantic rules, just logical ones. 15:10:50 docl was your little hamster knocked off his wheel? :)~ 15:10:51 lol 15:11:19 " in programming, you are the Creator. now look at the theological consequences of that" -- the capitalization leaps right into semantic violations, and probably civil and criminal ones too. :) 15:11:29 lol 15:11:42 i dont have a problem with that quotquot 15:11:55 [Cc] not withstanding 15:12:06 You're the one who dips his Forth in a bucket of faith before each bite. 15:12:21 need not go anywhere else. 15:12:29 :> 15:12:42 well the declaration of independance sure does capitalize a lot :) 15:13:00 yep; nice segue 15:13:13 what are you avoiding? 15:13:15 :) 15:13:48 --- quit: nighty_ ("Disappears in a puff of smoke") 15:13:54 p00f; 15:15:06 Quartus all those "semantic, civil and criminal" are just bad propoganda bsaed on BAD understanding and much hear-say from the Bible. I wouldnt sweat it. 15:15:33 Sweat it? Keep your religion out of it. It's a programming language. 15:16:03 i dont do religions; i do relationship. 15:17:51 Welcome to #forth, we discuss forth, simplicity, and a variety of technical subjects. The rules are simple: don't spam, don't troll, and speak english. 15:18:05 does simplicity count? :) 15:18:11 it does for me. 15:18:22 there's no need to complicate anything. 15:18:52 there are already people who major in that for severely obtuse reasons. 15:19:00 i'm not gonna help them 15:19:20 you non-denomenational? 15:19:42 i'm biblical. 15:19:48 :) 15:20:05 denominational connotes division; i'm undivided. 15:20:08 Quiznos, cool 15:20:08 So, contradictory mixed with inaccurate and insane? I'll buy that. 15:20:11 ty 15:20:14 <-- me too 15:20:15 --- join: Shain (i=steve@c-67-161-56-76.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #forth 15:20:38 * docl attends a presbyterian church, but is not affiliated with the denomination 15:21:01 but that doesnt mean i agree with every doctrine taught by organised sects; some of it is just plain unsupportable. 15:21:45 yeah. some of the more organized/centralized ones are relly more like cults. 15:24:16 --- join: raincrossbow (i=ogremage@194.158.209.201) joined #forth 15:40:31 good evening 15:40:36 hey crc 15:41:24 crc 15:50:17 not crc, but md5 :) 16:03:26 good evening fortherinos 16:03:50 ray 16:03:56 --- nick: Raystm2- -> Raystm2 16:14:34 --- quit: raincrossbow () 16:17:28 Hi Raystm2. 16:24:03 hi Quartus :) 16:24:28 * Raystm2 is working on RetroChess 16:25:16 http://retroforth.net/paste/?id=77 last nights paste adds en passant and castleing. lots left to do. 16:26:55 docl, I saw that neat evaluator for chess. I think I'll have to make it just a bit smarter to handle the special cases, but you've definately inspired me. 16:27:35 oh wait wrong room :) 16:28:47 Isn't "oow oob ooow ooob" what the Stooges used to say? 16:29:25 Raystm2 not really wrong 16:29:26 hahahaha 16:29:37 heh 16:29:44 and Horshack 16:30:05 Neal, you tickle me bro. :) 16:30:10 I'll do something better with that when I start to monitor the "whose-move". 16:30:40 oow oob ooow ooob! 16:30:43 when I always know whose moving then I can get rid of the w and the b and reduce the functions to two. 16:31:04 Well, after white moves, it's blacks move; I wouldn't expect to have to explain that to the program. 16:31:15 hahahaha 16:31:51 no but i'm doing something a little different the the Gforth/win32forth difference and I wanna define whose-,move later on. 16:32:30 this time i'll be using FEN for the persistance, and I'll get whose-move from that 16:32:40 I understand FEN, but I don't follow all the stuff that's tagged onto the end of those FEN strings. 16:33:07 oh right should have added docs there... lets see 16:33:08 FEN is dandy for input and export, but I wouldn't keep it as the internal representation of the board. 16:33:24 no the internal rep is the board array. 16:33:45 To round it out, you don't want FEN for persistence, you want PGN. 16:34:37 PGN is a bit tricky to parse. 16:35:02 no I want PGN for displaying the play by play. well, I use a PGN subset in b18chess but you have to parse ,... ya every move to get a board. 16:35:24 that FEN I show there , you just need only one of those lines to get the current board AND 16:35:28 Well, outputting PGN gives you persistence, and being able to parse it is also a good thing. 16:35:28 you can branch games. 16:35:52 You really want PGN output for feeding into any analysis engine, they all need pgn. 16:35:59 Ya like I said, I did that for the Gforth/win32... You'll get me to do it again :) 16:39:21 Takes a bit of code to correctly parse all legal pgn, to disambiguate. 16:41:44 easier if you do it in steps, translate to board-coords first. 16:42:15 Well, steps or no, you're allowed, in PGN, to imply a certain amount of information that's derivable by context during actual play. 16:42:18 handle all board-coords as base 18 numbers and then it's only math. 16:43:31 sure, I get that. 16:43:37 that makes very good sence. 16:44:05 In terms of just parsing, for instance, P is not used. Just left out. So you have to be prepared to validate each move whether or not there's a piece specified. 16:44:56 do you mean that pawns can move with only destination square given? 16:45:02 Right. 16:45:07 when you say that P is left out. 16:45:24 ya I achieved that in B18. 16:45:32 In fact in PGN destination squares are generally all that's given. If there's two, say, rooks that can move to a given square, it's necessary to specify the file or rank to differentiate which one was actually moved. 16:45:54 right, first you need to know how all peices move... 16:45:58 Pretty common first move: 1. e4 That means, all spelled out, Pe2e4. 16:46:21 then from the destination you need to disambiguate which piece. 16:46:33 Which pawn, in the case of a move with no piece indicated. 16:46:52 All other pieces require specification, QRBN or K. 16:47:22 yes indeed. 16:48:32 To determine legality, you need a chess engine that can calculate all legal moves from a given position; then you need to be able to parse PGN correctly, then for each move, determine that there is only one legal move that corresponds to the PGN move given. 16:48:37 its a very fun problem, one that I was able to get my head around, so it became the very first program I ever completed in forth. 16:51:15 Quartus: when I say complete, I'm up to doing board coord moves, e2e4, e2 e4 , e4 all equivelent, ooo or oo for castling, which checks whose move and uses the very same calculation for white or black, and en passant which takes the offending pawn automatically. 16:51:37 Sure. That's not enough to parse PGN, or output optimized PGN. 16:51:53 this I realize but a translator is in the plans :) 16:52:21 I want to go from PGN to FEN to Base18 to what have you. :) life goal. 16:52:26 There are various subtleties in terms of castling rules, like not being allowed to castle across an attacked square. 16:52:33 yes. 16:53:04 FEN is really good for keeping track of such thing. 16:53:08 +s 16:53:41 I wouldn't use FEN as an internal representation, not the FEN with compressed spaces, anyway. But for input and output, it's sometimes handy. You do need to track all the same things FEN tracks, certainly. 16:54:07 FEN doesn't track whether castling is legal, actually. It tracks whether you've already castled. 16:54:20 And whether you've forfeited being able to castle on either side. 16:54:50 But in the case where you've moved neither King, nor Rook, and the intervening squares are clear, castling is still available, and FEN will indicate that, even if the intervening squares are under attack thus making castling temporarily illegal. 16:54:51 it's nice for branching games, which my boards will beable to do. 16:55:42 What do you mean by 'branching games'? 16:55:46 in the list-of-prev-moves display, when you hit the menu system, you will beable to branch or start from a branch. 16:56:17 okay, when my dad and I play chess, we like to go back and explore the road not taken. 16:56:39 Oh. Well, as I say, FEN is for human readability, I'd use some other internal method of storage, but allow FEN in/out. 16:56:49 ;) 16:58:19 personally, I don't like FEN for a readable rep of the game, I like PGN much better. 16:58:24 RIght. 16:58:33 But I like FEN for the branching system :) 16:59:43 it's also very good for starting a game from other then first-position. 17:00:30 altho, I also like to do stuff like R a1, N a2 ... 17:00:32 have either of you heard of the chess book titled _my system_ ? 17:00:52 hi Quiznos, not I. 17:00:58 hi ray, ok 17:01:08 Quartus how about you? 17:01:27 it's a interesting book, by a russian i think 17:01:39 picked it up a few years ago at a library sale 17:01:49 is it about computable chess? 17:01:59 no, it's about winning 17:02:01 :) 17:02:09 it's not a pamphlet either 17:02:22 * Raystm2 doesn't win at chess. :) 17:02:37 and you're writing a chess game? 17:02:41 NON-SEQUITER! 17:02:43 heh 17:02:55 I'm not that great a player. It's just a problem that I could understand about the same time that I found forth. 17:03:05 ah 17:03:10 when did you find? 17:03:19 3-10 years ago :) 17:03:23 lol 17:03:26 I found colorforth first 17:03:30 not too sure, are we? 17:03:33 about 10-12 years ago. 17:03:51 nuh uh, you're stuck with the original range 17:03:54 3-10 17:04:00 then I played with 18 or so languages and landed on forth for good about 3-4 years ago. 17:04:42 i've forgotten more than most learn in a lifetime 17:04:46 I wrote Base18Chess about 2-3 years ago. 17:04:50 hehe 17:04:52 cool 17:05:02 lol 17:05:10 17:05:14 hehe 17:05:40 * Raystm2 will brag about the other 18 langs in there respective chats. 17:06:32 I can't legally claim 18 languages anymore as I don't remember them all with out digging out old machines. 17:06:44 yea 17:06:49 i used to write cobol 17:06:54 * Quiznos swoons 17:06:57