00:00:00 --- log: started forth/06.08.04 00:18:02 --- quit: tate ("Leaving") 00:19:10 --- join: segher (n=segher@dslb-084-056-145-228.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 04:05:46 --- join: neceve (n=claudiu@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 04:39:02 --- join: virl (n=virl@62.178.85.149) joined #forth 04:48:47 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-2pool198-122.nas30.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 05:17:17 --- join: PoppaVic1 (n=pete@0-1pool46-111.nas30.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 05:18:43 --- quit: PoppaVic (Nick collision from services.) 05:18:46 --- nick: PoppaVic1 -> PoppaVic 05:49:54 --- join: timlarson_ (n=timlarso@65.116.199.19) joined #forth 06:08:11 --- join: tathi (n=josh@pdpc/supporter/bronze/tathi) joined #forth 06:08:41 lo, tathi 06:08:46 hi 06:10:46 morning folks 06:10:52 howdy 06:11:00 up for a question? 06:11:13 a real one 06:11:14 too 06:11:15 you can try - I'm just mulling a changeover 06:11:18 k 06:11:31 I'll believe it's real when I see it 06:11:45 :) 06:11:53 in eforth model and source, there's a word named `macro' - has anyone seen eforth-code implementing that word? 06:12:02 tada 06:12:12 how real is that? :) 06:12:42 * tathi doesn't know anything about eforth 06:13:00 it's decent, i'm using it on linux 06:13:01 I recall a 'macro' from ancient fig/f79-forths 06:13:08 really? hmm 06:13:11 WHat's it doing? 06:14:05 The one I recall would save literal-strings of commands to force-feed the input-stream. Like #define or even 'inline' 06:14:12 well, being that there's lack of comments in the source file, i conjecture that it's meant for a kind of textual replacement 06:14:47 when the macro is named, the content of the word is assembled instead of the name being compiled 06:14:57 ie, 06:14:57 Very, very old FIG newsletters documented such a thing. It seems to have benn obviated over the years, but I am not sure why. 06:15:14 macro next lodsw jmp ax end-macro 06:15:18 ax jmp 06:15:24 oh. That's different 06:15:39 That'd be something *FOR* a forth-assembler. 06:15:43 yea 06:16:16 that SHOULD use the name 'next' and shovel in the asm-code to the input-stream. 06:16:29 wait, is this in assembly-language code, or forth code? 06:16:31 i designed an asm syntax that i prefer over intel-proper 06:16:42 it's forth, he's using an asm example. 06:17:10 well the src is code with args following opcode 06:17:25 it's backwards but that doesnt matter to me, i'm gonna replace it 06:17:33 Quiznos: that def of macro/end-macro is precisely the sort of thing they wrote about 20 years ago 06:17:40 kk 06:17:49 Ting remembers it 06:17:52 and Meunch too 06:17:59 yep 06:18:18 For some reason, it was never adopted by "the world" - to include ANS, iirc 06:18:29 so, you think it's googlable? 06:19:01 try the FIG homepage and issues that are from the late 70's to early 80's 06:19:18 is text from back then public? 06:19:30 I would wager you could puzzle one out for gforth in less than a dedicated-day 06:19:54 k 06:20:04 Quiznos: the oldest backissues should be, yeah - I don't feel like moving and searching boxed materials. 06:20:38 what would i do with paper? 06:20:41 heh 06:20:44 np 06:21:02 paper is great - you can sit on "the throne" and read it over and over ;-) 06:21:09 ..or in a tub 06:21:18 ..or when power is out, etc 06:21:18 sure, you should see my libr 06:21:21 yep 06:21:51 although - I admit, a single-mantle Coleman Lamp is NOT really good for the eyes 06:22:02 huh. I don't see why you would need macro/end-macro 06:22:02 heh 06:22:06 couldn't you just do 06:22:19 : next lodsw ax jmp ; immediate 06:22:28 nope 06:22:30 i know the normal forthy way is to c, and , 06:22:36 right 06:22:42 no, on the intel chips, inline is better for performance 06:22:50 instead of jumping around 06:22:59 yeah, but isn't the assembler normally set up to run in interpret mode? 06:23:03 on the 32bitters, jmping kills the cache 06:23:19 so that definition *would* inline the code 06:23:21 macro ( "end-macro" ---) 06:23:27 my assembler is different, so i cant give a straight answer. 06:23:44 ah. 06:23:56 well, that's how I do it 06:23:56 alot of intel chip instructions are 0-operand and I take serious advantage of that traigt 06:23:58 trait 06:24:04 all you are doing is encapsulating a string for shoving immediately back into the istream. 06:24:30 well `the stream' is just to c, and , in place 06:24:37 no fuss no muss 06:25:04 I suspect the big-brawl was that folks wanted to make macros data-compilers and immediate-exec doers 06:25:36 I _do_ recall that it was interesting, but that later issues had folks screaming 06:25:47 that's interesting 06:26:10 (every FIG member seems to want to rewrite anything - usually in asm) 06:26:38 well yea 06:26:56 Quiznos: no "well, yeah" - it was silly. 06:27:14 a LOT of arguments in FIG were just plain silly. 06:27:22 well yea, that too heh 06:27:48 alright, so i'll just replace the whole thing. but i'm kinda liking the macro concept 06:27:52 still true -- a lot of arguments in here are just plain silly :) 06:27:59 I can understand if folks want to minimize code in high-level, and I can understand "this is optimal for a 6502", but goddamn. 06:28:07 heh 06:29:35 tathi: well, again - if they would all work the same, fine - they rarely all work the same. I dunno *HOW* many issues I had with logic/branching arguments.. But it ALWAYS involved 'guts' that folks should not have HAD to think about. 06:30:15 I think, while I was a member, that every issue had arguments about switch/case and if/else, etc 06:31:13 Quiznos: so how does your assembler work? 06:32:42 new opcodes are named to include its operation; programmer's registers are single char; so, a++ means inc ax and <>b means xchg ax, bx 06:33:00 reg> assembles to 06:33:03 --- join: Ray_work (n=Raystm2@199.227.227.26) joined #forth 06:33:04 ah 06:33:08 >reg for pop 06:33:17 poor mans assembler are nice 06:33:22 alot of consts that just get c, 06:33:22 so just for your forth; not a complete x86 assembler then? 06:33:26 hI 06:33:30 hi ray 06:33:31 Hi even 06:33:37 hi Ray 06:33:38 subject? 06:33:45 hi Josh :) 06:33:52 i do want to port some of that complex addressing over 06:34:21 but really there's only a need for the uncomplicated stuff at the moment 06:34:27 ya 06:35:02 Ray_work: Quiznos is explaining his "assembly language" syntax 06:35:13 i've never been satisfied with the asm syntax that Lax and Perry defined. (maybe it's older than them but it's not well factored IMO) 06:35:16 ah thanks 06:35:38 which bible page is that documented on..... /me ducks. 06:35:43 I still think that we need a "generic-assembler", sorta' like tathi's fovium stuff - think of it as a "portable assembler" 06:35:44 lol! 06:35:53 ray, i do have a good sense of humor 06:35:54 :) 06:36:27 I know, otherwise I wouldn't have :) 06:36:35 You know I do too? 06:36:38 yes? 06:36:46 well, for forth, i think coders should be focusing on the operations, not just rewriting the "locally authorised" syntax that chip makers deesign 06:36:47 design 06:37:10 I agree, let the C programmers and asm-heads write such .o 06:37:12 i also took idears from a really old article in DDJ for a redesign of the Motorola 68000 assembler 06:37:22 ray :) 06:37:29 sure i do 06:37:33 brb coffee 06:38:14 you mean the old Opcode argumentA, argumentB convention? 06:38:54 yea 06:39:03 it's soooo 1950s 06:39:04 :> 06:39:29 with today's language parsing skills and knowledge, there really is no need for that now 06:39:52 Regardless of the actual CPU, you still have the entire OS and all the hardware, and STILL need to do all the same things as they did in the 50's. 06:39:59 and you would like a forth thing or what? well then that would be argumentB argumentA opcode 06:40:07 the example from the ddj article i mentioned showed a 50% reduction in text when written in the new syntax 06:40:18 virl yea, more forthy flavor 06:40:20 source or target? 06:40:31 of the sample? 06:40:36 the 50% 06:40:50 50% reduction of text in the new syntax 06:40:56 well, I don't think it doesn't make something forthish with putting it into another direction. 06:40:56 ahh 06:41:03 as opposed to Motorola syntax 06:41:18 That's lovely, if it's nicely portable and NOT at the expense of readability. 06:41:19 well, where is that article? I'm interested 06:41:22 fewer letters, better style of referring to addressing modes 06:41:31 the idea is very portable 06:41:35 Verbose does NOT mean readable, let alone portable. 06:42:16 and then there's a book i have about implementing a os/coding system on 6502 "boxes" from Weitengarden (sp?) 06:42:25 This is sorta' another reason I am flogging this project of my own. 06:42:42 that book is from the very early 80s iinm 06:43:06 the "standard asm" syntax doesnt flow very well from mind-fingers-kbd-mind 06:43:14 it's very choppy and discrete 06:44:10 and with forth being a very expressive language, that makes using these syntax idears very easy to implement. 06:44:21 ' and find do all the real heavy lifting 06:44:57 that's my fave part of forth - symbol table entry, serching are already built-in 06:45:02 parsing too 06:45:37 as Chuck once wrote, coders like to reinvent interpreters; i'm well past that 06:48:54 another reason for simplifying the asm words is that i get to choose which which opcodes to include and that allows the coding of a kernel with relative-offsets instead of absolute address. there's one chip opcode that takes reloff as a operand instead of messing with addresing modes 06:49:36 i just need to figer out how to get back to one-segment binary program; the eforth-model doesnt make it clear 06:50:06 the package source assembles to ~32k right now 06:50:24 i'm not so hung up on binary size at the forth level any more 06:52:32 I still suspect yer missing a point, but.. As long as you are happy. 06:52:51 it's a work in progress; what point? 06:53:09 Chuck wrote a lot of stuff, I disagree with some of it - such as "colorforth" 06:53:41 what about colorforth? (i'm still processing that :) 06:54:38 Quiznos: what happens if you are colorblind? Why would the color matter to a textbook? Should editors that can use case, chars and colors be more aware? 06:54:47 good point 06:55:15 PoppaVic: that problem has been solved a long time ago with editor extensions that translate back to normal forth. 06:55:19 His "guts" or VM changes might be interesting, but he lost me with colors and such 06:55:28 mods 06:55:31 Ray_work: again, I'd ask "why"? 06:55:49 why not? 06:56:01 I think the translations should run the _other_ way. 06:57:16 I suspect he was clinging to the simple wordword stuff, and just added immediates all over - translators/interp. 06:58:32 ..maybe he even got too deep into the QM "color, style", etc terms 06:59:10 Even geniuses and inventors can be off, occasionally. 07:01:27 Quiznos: I'd like to see a baseline "language" - a core-voc (maybe with sub-wordlists) - that will "compile" ala' C, , and such in a form that is NOT pure cpu, but instead portable. Think of it as "portable VIRTUAL assembler". 07:02:00 I have to wonder how much support you'd need from a local asm, libs, objects. 07:03:30 It's even interesting to examine and speculate on what sorta' junk MUST be in the "vm" (registers??) and vmcontext (threads? procs?) 07:03:31 PoppaVic yea. for the last few days i've been wondering why meta-compiling (ie, compiling the compiler) is so different when compared to smallc compiling its own source code. i think i'm moving in that direction with a meta-compiler 07:03:53 what do you mean by "local asm"? 07:04:00 Quiznos: then yer heading my own direction, prolly from an angle. 07:04:02 afa support 07:04:11 perhaps 07:04:27 Quiznos: all that "asm" and #asm talk about is "ASM" - like it was a universal. 07:05:07 Yet, anything like forths could use a "virtual-asm" - the bootstrapped vm/engine base. 07:05:10 well, my idears are about 20 years old :) and they're fairly static afa further developement goes 07:05:39 afaict, vm and threads only need to save the "registers" and the user aread. 07:05:42 area 07:05:54 I lost track, when I hung around in #asm, of how many assemblers there are - multiples for every platform. 07:06:00 yep 07:06:30 right, which is why I am using C and structures and tried to codify the VMbase and VMcontext. 07:06:39 yea 07:06:52 which thread model are you using? 07:07:42 ..don't care if some idiot uses the "fubar-2000 assembler" or "gcc" - they still need objects to link into static, shared or plugin 07:08:47 Quiznos: I'm leaving it open.. Looks to me as though folks could use pthreads, pth, or just a new model - I don't CARE - All I wanted to do is leave a door in the wall for local-issues versus global/process/program issues. 07:09:00 k 07:09:12 bbs, gotta eats 07:09:17 WHat I _do_ is bootstrap a "main vm" 07:21:03 --- quit: PoppaVic ("Pulls the pin...") 07:21:16 --- join: vatic (n=cturner@pool-162-83-254-201.ny5030.east.verizon.net) joined #forth 07:22:33 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-1pool72-176.nas24.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 07:54:24 DO, ?DO, LOOP, and +LOOP are immediate words. What's the norm for LEAVE? My implementation in Ting's Forth back from '91 allows LEAVE to be compiled either way. 07:54:43 hehehehehehaha 07:55:08 We already mentioned this today. Are you having fun yet? 07:55:23 Hi jcw. I'd make LEAVE immediate. 07:55:33 OK. 07:56:34 It's a tad tricky to implement, you need to allow for multiple LEAVEs, track them and resolve them all after the loop. 07:56:40 PoppaVic [vm] yea 07:57:12 you need to know whom does what to whom, and where and why and how. 07:57:30 who does what to whom ;) 07:58:03 yeah.. and the generic "ABI" doesn't help a lot, when code is hidden, obscure or buried. 07:58:43 Multiple LEAVEs in the context of something like : foo DO IF LEAVE THEN IF LEAVE THEN LOOP ; ? 07:58:47 gforth won't act like pfe or whatever 08:00:40 jcw, yes -- any combination including more than one LEAVE inside the loop. 08:01:01 That would seem to make an argument for a run-time LEAVE, would it not? 08:01:16 --- quit: neceve ("Leaving") 08:01:23 No, it's not tough to resolve in advance, and is more efficient done that way. 08:02:11 Until folks diddle the stack 08:02:31 "which stack?" 08:04:34 The green one. 08:04:46 asm and C are bad enough with one stack, adding more stacks adds more "issues" 08:04:57 "bad enough"... whaetver. 08:05:26 so, you need to know where you are and whom does whome, "whatever". 08:05:34 Apparently I am registered of freenode, but still can't send private messages. 08:05:57 Did you log in? 08:06:11 er, rather, did you identify? 08:06:31 Gotta check 08:06:34 hmm, freenode warns you - and it will punt a poser after an interval. 08:06:39 with /msg NickServ IDENTIFY 08:07:34 --- nick: jcw -> k4jcw 08:07:50 odd, that... No Forth IRC clients? 08:08:03 Interesting. Apparently 'jcw' is registered, but not passworded or something. 08:08:14 Yes. Factor has one. If you consider Factor Forth. 08:08:24 * PoppaVic chuckles 08:08:32 and retroforth too.. 08:11:01 the retroforth irc client will eventually be part of the RetroChess. 08:11:26 your cool chess thing 08:11:37 does it have an AI? 08:11:46 Nearly time for the Friday 11:15 conference call for work. Back in a bit. 08:12:10 virl: not yet, it's just a smart board, but the idea is to leave a board that an ai can drive. 08:12:17 Ray_work: and that makes me enthusiasic - hoe? 08:12:27 how, too 08:13:56 version one used commands like : mv / mvs / pp ( pawn-promote) / ep / and 4 castle comands BUT 08:14:15 my newest version can handle all of that just from the move stream. For instance. 08:14:34 I have to tend to agree with my phd buddy, as-is, "forth" is the worlds must _unsupported_ language. It's just deadly-sad I have to agree with him. 08:15:13 I don't *like* to agree with him, but it seems true - every day. 08:15:28 ah /me just realizes what you are REALLY saying... 08:15:40 yup 08:15:55 some times it takes a sec to parse you. 08:16:03 Don't get knotted, I sure like "forths", but geezus. 08:16:27 "forth" is the worlds must _unsupported_ language? 08:17:46 The dude works for IBM, and I can't argue with him, when he can reel off alternatives like a tape-player. 08:18:20 I can DISAGREE, but - even a week or 4 in here would support him.. 08:18:56 It's like living in ##C and folks that pray to lisp or java. 08:19:26 heh 08:19:53 Something is funky, and forth and C are missing it. Or Forthers and C'ers. 08:20:18 I think it has to do with translation and baselines like OS 08:20:22 what are missing? 08:20:52 "platform" (if OS is offensive) 08:21:13 "Expectations", in the other direction. 08:25:47 Quiznos: it's really odd - starting from shells, OS, (forget pipes), translatators, loaders/linkers, and then back up again - just.. weird. 08:26:42 add in SBC and then os, and posix, and ansi/ans, and then watch yerself go blind... Weird. 08:28:10 you mean that forth is lame? ill-equipted to interface with modern capabilities of modern hw and software? 08:28:42 I suspect it's an issue that is all language(platform(shell(interpreter+compiler))): metacompiler issues 08:29:19 agreed and that's why i'm rebellious of the whole thing and wanting to attempt to do aright. 08:29:21 or even "metainterpreter" - I can't tell, I have heard and seen all SORTS of arguments 08:30:48 Quiznos: which is why I began #Metabuilder, and am sure we need a "minish" (portable and extensible shell) to baseline the poor bastard. HOWEVER, a _lot_ of ABI is missing across-the-board. 08:31:33 I suspect I'd be done by now, if I'd have accepted gforth. 08:31:39 re ABI, what's on your essentials-list? 08:31:49 nods 08:31:57 Yet, in spite of your continual confusion about everything, people are happily using Forth (and C) to write actual code right this minute today, interfacing with modern hardware and software. Coincidence? Read the book. 08:32:07 hah! Lol 08:32:14 sizes and endian and order, mostly - I try to ignore it and let C deal with it. 08:32:21 Q, heh, dont be so hard on him :)( 08:32:31 Quiznos: that would be impossible :) 08:32:32 he ponders, that's all 08:32:35 heh 08:32:38 You mean 'don't take the troll bait', and I do try. 08:33:01 Quartus: well, if you send me a free palm and yer code, I can try - meanwhile, yer an spinoff-topic. 08:33:05 as it is pseudo-writ, ``questions are the beginning of knowledge'' 08:33:25 No, I'm directly on-point. I'm not talking about Quartus Forth specifically at all. 08:34:21 Quiznos: I've been coding for over 20 years.. On multiple platforms. Sooo... I have to wonder why we suffer sh, csh, bash, make and such - and not forths 08:34:50 IBM wanted REXX - fine - why? 08:34:54 You're confused as to why there's more than one approach to programming languages? 08:35:00 I just keep asking and tinkering 08:35:10 well, you're obviously one of us -- misguided into compromising our ideals :) 08:35:40 Quartus: not in the least: every language is another translator/interpreter/compiler and language. 08:36:04 So, you don't wonder why there's sh, csh, bash, make, and other tools, or you do? 08:36:23 yes, no - of course. 08:36:37 Want to pick one of those? 08:36:45 now that i think of it, forth is quite in line with what Backus lamented about in his speech about functional programming aupon recieving some award: 08:37:13 I'd think the answer would be obvious why so many different tools of similar or nearly identical function exist. 08:37:27 yes 08:37:27 basically he said (mind you he said this in the mid-70s!) that current (then and still i note now) programming languages are too low-level 08:37:28 answerS, actually. 08:37:45 Forth is precisely and can be all things to each coder. 08:37:59 it can slam bits and dance the OO-model 08:38:04 that's diverse. 08:38:29 no, it can't be. 08:38:36 prove it 08:38:59 or atleast support the claim 08:39:07 'prove it'? Why don't you prove that the color blue can't be all colors to all people? Forth can't be Haskell to anyone. 08:39:25 illogical: forth is not a color -- try to stay on point? 08:39:38 He's on point. That was an analogy. 08:39:54 fp as Backus told, starts as a concept, and all concepts are portable. 08:40:16 no forth is color (dispite Moore's use of color ;) 08:40:30 Quiznos - whatever Backus said, Forth can't be Haskell to anyone. 08:40:41 You need to look up the definition of what an analogy is, Quiznos. 08:40:42 ok 08:40:49 k4jcw ok 08:41:16 the point is that ayrnieu is thinking of concreteness instead of fluid concepts. 08:41:55 You must be able to read his unspoken thoughts, then. 08:42:18 i quit mind-reading when I learned the thoughts of God :) 08:42:20 lol 08:42:23 hah! 08:43:53 Ok. Check with your invisible friend on what an analogy is, and then come back. 08:45:01 --- join: nighty_ (n=nighty@66-163-28-100.ip.tor.radiant.net) joined #forth 08:45:06 yea yea sure sure 08:45:08 :) 08:45:22 hi 08:45:30 Hi nighty_. 08:48:02 * PoppaVic is still talking Ma' and the hospital with sis, sorry... 08:48:06 Haskell is just one implementation of function programming. again, Backus's point was that a new style of coding is required. lisp has it, haskell does a style of it, there are others also with varying degrees of agreement with Backus's speech. why cant Forth have some of it? 08:48:58 Which is an entirely different thing to say than "Forth is precisely and can be all things to each coder". 08:49:33 there's no contradiction tween those two statements 08:49:57 Quiznos - more carefully identify the style, then use it in your Forth programming, making changes as you need to support this style. Then publish your findings. 08:50:12 of course 08:50:35 i'm currently in the study phase of fp 08:50:44 and pondering also 08:50:57 learning to translate fp concepts to forth 08:51:06 Indeed. Chanting "Hosanna" about Forth being the grand solution to all things is neither useful nor correct. 08:51:40 wow. ok lemme rephrase that. forth is the most extensible IDE availabe. 08:52:08 in terms of the ``Tao of Unix'' it's has the highest level of Tao possible. 08:52:23 Actually, assembly does. 08:52:40 assembly is not an IDE though 08:52:48 so assembly fails 08:52:50 Neither is forth. 08:52:58 I mean, it doesn't seem to let me edit words in VI. 08:53:01 Once again, a vague, sweeping assertion. Using the word "Tao" makes it even more vague. If you think there's some purpose to be served in ranking IDEs in some order of less-to-most extensible, set some measurable criteria. 08:53:02 then you dont understand what ``tao of unix'' means. 08:53:03 no, 'assembly' is so fragile that almost anything you do to improve on it will leave you with something other than assembly. 08:53:08 so it's not really integrated. 08:53:46 Define fragile. I've been writing assembly on embedded processors and PCs for over 25 years. 08:53:52 It's only as fragile as the programmer is bad. 08:54:10 k4jcw - you're talking about something else, now. 08:54:29 I am? 08:56:30 yes, as soon as you indicated that the skill of a programmer had anything to do with what I said. In the context of Quiznos's vague quest to add FP styles to Forth, and his assertion that all features are tame to -- well, tame to the classification of Forth. As soon as you add much type checking to assembly, nobody will agree anymore that you have 'assembly'. 08:57:48 ayrnieu i note that you've mischaracterised my posts. 08:57:59 ok 08:59:04 'tame' and 'feral' here are fun befunge words, which I apply here to classification. Look them up! /me & 08:59:42 it's not good to redefine words without notice. 08:59:53 * PoppaVic apologizes, still strategizing mom coming from hospital 09:00:14 PoppaVic there's no need to apoligise for what must be done. 09:00:37 I know, but I can't talk in 5 directions at once, and I am missing a lot. 09:01:10 In the context of programming, I define 'fragile' as meaning that it is easily broken if changed. Properly designed code tends to be more robust, therefore less fragile. The ability to create more robust code is dependent on the skill of the programmer. 09:01:20 yep 09:01:43 So if you're using fragile in another context, it's not compatible with mine. 09:05:33 PoppaVic no one asks you to be pentafaced 09:05:59 everyone has expectations 09:06:26 all i demand is a lack of confusion and truth. 09:09:01 yeppers, or viewpoints under "understood" 09:09:24 honest opinions only need be expressed :) 09:10:40 sure, and experiences 09:10:53 agreed 09:11:11 "I've never had a problem with FOO..." 09:11:47 "every machine does BAR" 09:12:13 (of course, HOW is moot) 09:12:59 moo 09:25:33 gahh 09:28:34 what? 09:29:15 well, i found a forth2c translator 09:29:22 by Anton et al. 09:41:49 gahhh 09:57:18 --- join: Quartus_ (n=Quartus_@209.167.5.1) joined #forth 10:00:17 geezus... OK, back to life - lemme' recycle... 10:00:19 --- quit: PoppaVic ("Pulls the pin...") 10:02:01 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-1pool47-220.nas30.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 10:02:50 found a c2forth package 10:03:12 Quiznos: apparently, Ma' is heading into "endgame" and w/o decent docs or even understanding - it was getting tearful and family-oriented 10:03:30 Quiznos: they just ain't greatly portable. 10:04:01 http://www.mpeltd.demon.co.uk/arena/c2forth110.zip 10:04:37 PoppaVic it can be a difficult situation but one thing i do know, she's in your future still. 10:04:47 yeah, I've burned a few downloads with such. zips make me ill to begin with, because I already know they are semidos 10:04:52 she's only going to sleep. 10:05:08 source is within the zip 10:05:24 peel back the url one level to get a page 10:05:36 Quiznos: no, I live here and care for her as I can - but I refuse to cater to psychoshit. Other than that, the tears run. 10:06:11 Quiznos: I meant the solutions within the .zip - usually they are really hard dos-cp/m based. 10:06:58 * PoppaVic tries to live "multitasking" 10:07:48 wow, you dont make it easy to help. 10:07:50 --- part: Quiznos left #forth 10:07:58 Sadly, I am afraid I won't be able to die first - leaving Ma' and the rest to the probs. Christ knows I been trying. 10:15:20 --- quit: Shain (Remote closed the connection) 10:16:55 You're just not trying hard enough. 10:18:09 "show me", pretend I'm from MO 10:18:43 Such wit. 10:18:59 k4jcw: that was what I thought about you 10:19:18 You're the one that said "Christ knows I been trying." 10:20:00 k4jcw: ain't it a bitch? Write up "the forth", "show me". 10:20:39 meanwhile, bugger off - I had not been dribbling on you. 10:23:54 fuck it.. I'm off to getting dinner ready. 10:23:57 --- quit: PoppaVic ("Pulls the pin...") 10:26:54 ain't he a charmer? 10:28:31 Indeed 11:17:41 DO always makes one pass through the loop, right? Whereas ?DO checks for equality. So DO juse compiles (DO), while ?DO compiles (?DO), and the CFA of the word after the address to the start of the loop after (LOOP) or (+LOOP)? 11:21:34 hmm. That might be one way it's been done. I compile an if ... then around a ?do. 11:23:05 I think in effect the ?do becomes an if. 11:23:36 I think this eforth implementation that I use for ideas has it's ?do loops screwed up. Either originally, or perhaps when I rewrote it. 11:23:41 Yes, but I actually compile the conditional. 11:24:00