00:00:00 --- log: started forth/06.10.19
01:21:18 --- nick: crest_ -> Crest
01:43:27 --- join: Smidsy (n=dmikejon@cpc2-neww1-0-0-cust751.cdif.cable.ntl.com) joined #forth
01:45:50 --- part: Smidsy left #forth
02:16:18 --- quit: JasonWoof (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
02:17:07 --- join: vatic (n=chatzill@pool-162-84-156-148.ny5030.east.verizon.net) joined #forth
02:22:38 --- join: JasonWoof (n=jason@c-71-192-26-248.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) joined #forth
02:22:39 --- mode: ChanServ set +o JasonWoof
02:34:27 --- nick: arke__ -> arke
03:12:43 --- quit: jackokring (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
03:25:44 --- quit: vatic ("*poof*")
03:44:28 --- join: Cheery (n=Cheery@a81-197-19-23.elisa-laajakaista.fi) joined #forth
03:54:18 --- join: jackokring (n=jackokri@ACC9503E.ipt.aol.com) joined #forth
04:11:13 --- quit: JasonWoof ("off to bed")
04:23:42 --- join: crest_ (n=crest@p548972CE.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth
04:25:58 --- quit: crest_ (Client Quit)
04:35:25 --- quit: Crest (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
05:01:34 --- join: arke_ (n=Chris@pD9E06978.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth
05:01:42 --- quit: arke (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
05:03:47 --- part: EdLin left #forth
05:09:56 --- nick: Cheery -> batman
05:10:21 --- nick: batman -> Cheery
05:17:24 --- quit: timlarson (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
05:47:45 --- quit: arke_ (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
05:54:06 --- quit: jc (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
05:56:11 --- join: tgkuo3 (n=tgkuo3@125-233-3-231.dynamic.hinet.net) joined #forth
05:59:47 --- join: Ray_work (n=Raystm2@199.227.227.26) joined #forth
06:01:54 <Ray_work> Good morning.
06:03:20 <tgkuo3> bon soir
06:04:45 <Ray_work> :)
06:05:56 --- join: arke (n=Chris@pD9E059C7.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth
06:05:56 --- mode: ChanServ set +o arke
06:06:09 <Ray_work> hi arke :)
06:06:20 <arke> hi
06:07:22 <Ray_work> I got an envelope that will fit the folendar... mailing this afternoon!
06:08:33 <arke> thanks! :D
06:08:38 <arke> :D :D :D
06:08:45 <arke> how big is the folendar?
06:08:46 <Ray_work> np.
06:10:22 <Ray_work> it's 3 peices of paper folded so ... there are 2 8x11's and one 8x14 and after folded it ends up being like a letter fold size of a normal piece of paper, but you can fold that in quarters so...
06:11:53 --- part: tgkuo3 left #forth
06:12:04 <arke> cool
06:12:19 <arke> so if I quarter fold it it fits in a pocket, right?
06:14:07 <Ray_work> ya or even half fold it. When I quarter fold it, I can put 3 folendars in a mans front-pocket-wallet
06:15:24 <arke> cool cool cool
06:18:25 --- quit: snowrichard ("Leaving")
06:28:14 --- join: jcw (n=jcw@adsl-074-238-180-251.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) joined #forth
06:38:00 --- join: madwork (n=foo@204.138.110.15) joined #forth
06:39:41 --- quit: jackokring ("Bersirc 2.2: Looks, feels and sounds (?!) different! [ http://www.bersirc.org/ - Open Source IRC ]")
06:40:20 --- join: jackokring (n=jackokri@ACC9503E.ipt.aol.com) joined #forth
06:53:56 <Cheery> Is there pattern matcher implementations for forth?
06:54:03 <Cheery> or unificator.
06:54:28 <Cheery> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_matching
06:55:53 <Cheery> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification
06:58:43 --- join: JasonWoof (n=jason@c-71-192-26-248.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) joined #forth
06:58:44 --- mode: ChanServ set +o JasonWoof
07:00:47 --- quit: jackokring (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer))
07:02:15 --- join: virl (n=virl@chello062178085149.1.12.vie.surfer.at) joined #forth
07:07:34 --- join: jackokring (n=jackokri@ACC9503E.ipt.aol.com) joined #forth
07:14:56 <arke> Cheery, not that I know of but its possible to make one
07:39:49 <Cheery> arke: I know, but I wonder what would be the best interface for such.
07:51:36 --- join: zpg (n=user@user-5440eceb.wfd80a.dsl.pol.co.uk) joined #forth
07:54:20 <zpg> hi all.
07:54:56 <arke> hi
07:56:21 <zpg> how's it going arke?
07:56:32 <arke> pretty decent
07:56:37 <zpg> good good.
07:56:45 <arke> glad im not in the US at the moment though :)
07:57:26 <zpg> why? have i missed a big news item?
07:57:42 <arke> I assume its not that big in the media over there
07:57:47 <zpg> what?
07:57:53 <arke> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg&eurl=
07:58:02 <arke> thats actually msnbc
07:58:16 <arke> mr. bush basically laid the framework for suspension of habeas corpus
07:59:06 <arke> (habeas corpus = being told why you're being detained and getting a chance of trial)
08:00:35 <zpg> hmm i see.
08:01:31 <zpg> i'm operating in a much more palm-based framework at the moment. my palm crashed totally, had to do a hard reset.
08:01:35 <zpg> first hotsync failed midway
08:01:42 <arke> ouch
08:01:44 <arke> :/
08:02:21 <zpg> yep
08:02:49 <arke> i wish i had a little tablet pc or something
08:02:51 <arke> something really small
08:04:35 <zpg> once more, failure and a boot loop
08:04:38 <zpg> damnit!
08:04:51 <virl> msnbc? is that a microsoft sponsored channel?
08:05:55 <arke> no, powered by microsoft
08:06:32 <virl> is there a difference?
08:06:37 <zpg> i take it this is MSN + NBC
08:06:40 <arke> basically, they took NBC news, microsoft gave them $200 million and a promise to equip with microsoft products, and in return, got the MS in the name.
08:08:07 <virl> so the whole channel is a microsoft commercial?
08:08:21 <arke> the name is, the channel isnt
08:21:52 <zpg> well, i removed the backups folder entirely, so hopefully this Memo synchronisation works...
08:44:10 <zpg> hoorah
08:48:28 <arke> :)
08:53:57 --- join: rabbitwhite (n=Miranda@136.160.196.114) joined #forth
08:58:19 <virl> what's the sense in life in this world?
08:59:12 <rabbitwhite> what
08:59:19 <rabbitwhite> huh?
09:00:44 <rabbitwhite> if you are talking about committing suicide then this is the last time i'm signing onto a forth channel
09:04:30 <Ray_work> hi rabbitwhite.
09:04:36 <Quartus> Hey rabbitwhite.
09:04:49 <Ray_work> rabbitwhite pm please?
09:04:55 <Ray_work> hi Quartus :)
09:05:25 <Quartus> hey ray.
09:05:38 <Quartus> zpg, what are you writing that's crashing so hard?
09:06:30 <Quartus> Cheery, I wrote one recently.  s" hi there" s" *th?r*" pattern-match . -> -1   There's also pattern-search, and pattern-locate.
09:08:39 <virl> since what time does that means to commit suicide?
09:09:51 <rabbitwhite> lets have a vote who else would have interpreted "what's the sense of life in this world" as what i thought
09:10:12 <Quartus> It does have that 'teenage angst' sound to it.
09:10:40 <virl> I'm in a philosophical mood
09:11:07 <virl> angst? haeh? wtf?
09:11:28 <Ray_work> that's not how you spell psycological, or even pathological. :) lol
09:12:05 <virl> Ray_work, what do you mean?
09:12:54 <Quartus> Yes, angst.  "what's the sense of life in this world?" is along the same lines as "why go on?" or "what's the point in continuing to live?", the cornerstone of bad teenage poetry.
09:13:13 <Ray_work> it's not to be taken seriously. but what I mean is that if everybody thinks you want to commit suicide then philisophical becomes pathalogical.
09:14:43 <virl> I don't understand your points nor the idiotic conclusion that this the cornerstone of bad teenage poetry
09:15:52 <rabbitwhite> somebody needs a girl or boy friend 
09:16:08 <Quartus> Bad teenage poetry is an expression of the angst associated with adolescent existential dilemmas, usually in blank verse, though sometimes it rhymes, which is especially bad. :)
09:17:34 <virl> adolescent angst? well, dream your dreams but they don't fit my reality and never ever will.
09:18:18 <rabbitwhite> dude, have you ever been on the internet.
09:18:46 <rabbitwhite> stupid teenage poetry is like the glue that holds it together
09:18:51 <Quartus> You are a teenager, or only just past; you're bitter, angry, and contentious; you are asking philosophical questions that most people ask at the age of 15 or so.  So I'd say it fits pretty well.
09:18:57 <rabbitwhite> or something liek that
09:19:11 <rabbitwhite> how old is virl?
09:19:15 <rabbitwhite> thats what i want to know no
09:19:16 <rabbitwhite> w
09:19:22 <virl> virl is 21 in april
09:19:30 <virl> well, will be
09:20:49 <rabbitwhite> k so you're not a teenager
09:21:13 <virl> 15 pah.. only very stupid people are able to think something like that.
09:22:02 <rabbitwhite> i think the point of life in this world is to see past the bullshit
09:22:08 <rabbitwhite> at least at this point in time
09:23:27 <virl> better would it be when it could be changed.
09:23:36 <Ray_work> rabbitwhite: good a point as any. /me restrains himself from getting "philisophically" off  topic.
09:24:00 <Quartus> If you think something needs changing, change it.
09:24:15 <arke> dunno
09:24:18 <arke> you're just one person
09:24:25 <arke> and the US doesn't have habeas corpus anymore
09:24:29 <arke> :)
09:24:31 <Quartus> heh
09:25:18 <arke> all you need is the "enemy combatant" flag set next to your number
09:27:10 --- join: erider (n=erider@unaffiliated/erider) joined #forth
09:27:16 <erider> hi all 
09:27:21 <arke> hi
09:27:27 <Quartus> hey
09:27:41 <erider> how are things today?
09:27:47 <Quartus> Not too bad. You?
09:28:12 <erider> very well! 
09:28:30 <erider> just got some books from amazon 
09:28:43 <Quartus> On what?
09:28:51 <erider> assembly 
09:28:55 <Ray_work> hi erider
09:28:57 <Quartus> x86?
09:29:25 <erider> x86 and x86_64
09:29:55 <erider> hi R!
09:30:40 <Ray_work> :)
09:31:44 <Ray_work> Quartus: erider is still of the opinion that assembler is easier/readable/maintainable better then forth. How do you compare these languages?
09:32:09 <Quartus> Ray_work, that would depend entirely on your context.  It may seem easier or more readable or more maintable to erider.
09:33:16 <Quartus> I have no trouble understanding, reading, or maintaining either.  A good macro assembler has some of the features of Forth, but by no means all.  In contrast, Forth makes an excellent macro assembler, plus has all the extra good stuff.
09:35:07 <erider> for me its just some on the code is cryptic. Its like when zpg was trying to explain something to me and you were making corrections Q
09:35:16 <erider> s/on/of
09:35:31 <Quartus> Unfortunately zpg's examples weren't aligning with his explanation at that particular time.
09:35:39 <Quartus> Stack diagrams a bit off.
09:36:13 <erider> :) it just left me more confused 
09:36:23 <erider> but its coming a long 
09:36:49 <erider> I like the quartus on my treo because it makes standalone programs 
09:37:06 <Quartus> Oh yes?  I didn't know you were a registered user.  Glad you're enjoying it.
09:37:09 <erider> I haven't found a forth implementation on linux that does that 
09:37:57 <erider> I have gforth and retro on my system and I use gforth more then retro but I like the syntax of retro in some of its data structure 
09:38:25 <Quartus> data structure?
09:38:46 <erider> blocks of defined data 
09:38:51 <Quartus> in what way?
09:39:13 <erider> hold one I will find you an example
09:40:03 <erider> loc:
09:40:03 <erider>   variable off
09:40:03 <erider>   : mpad here 2048 + ;
09:40:03 <erider>   : process drop mpad off @ type cr 0 off ! ;
09:40:03 <erider>   : copy dup 32 <if drop 32 then mpad off @ + c! 1 off +! ;
09:40:03 <erider>   :: net.read dup 10 =if process ;; then copy ;
09:40:07 <erider>  ;loc alias update 
09:40:29 <Quartus> Which part of that are you talking about?
09:41:01 <erider> the block of data between the loc:  ->data<- loc;
09:41:25 <Quartus> oh. The code, you mean.  loc: ;loc is a way of hiding name headers.
09:41:32 <erider> and you can give the whole thing a name such as update 
09:41:45 <erider> yup 
09:41:49 <Quartus> well you can't, actually. What's being named there is the last :: definition.
09:42:44 <erider> but is looks modular 
09:42:50 <erider> it*
09:43:12 <Quartus> crc has since added section: expose and ;section, after some code I wrote in the ANS layer.  It's a bit cleaner, syntax-wise.
09:43:45 <Quartus> so that would be    section:    variable off .... expose  : update  net.read ... ;    ;section
09:44:07 <Quartus> everything before expose is hidden, everything after is visible.
09:44:09 <erider> cool!
09:44:45 <Quartus> In Standard Forth (gforth included) I use -- and recommend -- a fancier setup.  module/public:/private:/end-module.  It's more flexible, and it nests.
09:45:12 <erider> and some of the functions or words in forth are confusing to me at time with the way that parameter are passed 
09:45:48 <Quartus> any in particular come to mind?
09:46:26 <erider> not confusing but maybe I have to get use to passing parameters via the stack 
09:47:40 <erider> : foo ( n1 n2 -- n )  + cr .  ;  this is simple but if I was to add some more stuff to it. It may get confusing to me 
09:48:01 <virl> erider, you seem to enjoy it more when you can use the registers
09:48:03 <Quartus> It's also wrong.  The stack diagram there is ( n1 n2 -- )
09:48:19 <erider> I know that its going to take 2 arguments and return one 
09:48:40 <Quartus> It's not.  You're using . to consume the result.
09:49:05 <erider> I got that but if I want to add * or / then I'm getting deep in to what I want it do work on first 
09:49:13 <Quartus> it goes left->right.
09:49:44 <virl> erider?
09:49:49 <erider> s/do/to 
09:50:05 <virl> 2 3 4 + * -> (3+4)*2
09:50:15 <Quartus> Under Quartus Forth, there's OPG by Wil Baden.  If you set its debug mode on, you can use it to show you the translation between infix and postfix, it should help you understand better.
09:50:23 <erider> yup that stuff virl
09:50:36 <virl> and that's confusing?
09:51:00 <erider> not now but it did
09:51:23 <erider> the things that confuse me now it all the stack fiddling 
09:51:24 <rabbitwhite> god i can't read algebraic expressions
09:51:47 <erider> -rot, rot, over, dup, 2over etc... 
09:51:54 <virl> which algebraic expressions?
09:52:01 <rabbitwhite> heh 3 of those you shouldnt need 90% of the time
09:52:12 <rabbitwhite> (x+y)/3*4-n
09:52:15 <rabbitwhite> stuff like that
09:52:19 <rabbitwhite> i can't remember order of expressions
09:52:37 <Quartus> oh you mean   x @ y @ +  3 /  4 *  n @ -   :)
09:52:43 <virl> erider, that's stack juggling and it shows when you use it too often that you don't use forth correctly.
09:52:57 <rabbitwhite> Quartus: that i can read! 
09:53:28 <Quartus> infix is conceptually quite a bit trickier than postfix, but it's taught early so people are more accustomed to it.
09:53:39 <erider> virl: got it but the tutorial is stressing this word 
09:53:50 <erider> to be about the do things easier 
09:54:03 <erider> s/about/able 
09:54:16 <erider> s/about/able  to :)
09:54:18 <virl> postfix is longer..
09:55:13 <rabbitwhite> less cramped i say
09:55:17 <erider> should I just work with a shallow stack
09:55:18 <virl> perhaps an argument against it, or not, I like postfix
09:55:19 <Quartus> No. The Forth syntax may be longer because of the dereferences and spaces, but the expression is not.  x y+3/4*n-  is shorter than (x+y)/3*4-n.
09:55:25 <rabbitwhite> and you want it to show how long it really is.  
09:56:11 <virl> erider, yes, a stack shouldn't have more than 4 elements(that's the ideal number)
09:56:48 <erider> so :  foo ( x y n -- ans )  + 3 / 4 *  ; ?
09:57:08 <virl> somehow I think the expression isn't correctly translated, but let's see.. start checking...
09:57:31 <erider> oops 
09:57:45 <Quartus> erider, no. That'll add n to y, divide the result by 3, multiply that result by 4, and then leave x totally alone.
09:57:45 <virl> not you, Quartus one
09:57:53 <erider> 3 + 4 / * 
09:58:07 --- quit: madwork (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
09:58:19 <Quartus> erider, that'll add 3 to n, divide the result by 4, and multiply that result by y, again leaving x totally alone.
09:58:22 <rabbitwhite> you dont want a routine with 3 args that are used that way
09:58:47 <rabbitwhite> its a waste with the stack operations
09:59:09 <rabbitwhite> also, i think its fair to say that this theoretical garbage gets people nowhere
09:59:37 <Quartus> If you wanted that, you'd do this:    : formula ( n y x )  + 3 / 4 * swap - ;
09:59:41 <rabbitwhite> just program in forth and try to see the places where you can leverage it AS IS to your advantage
09:59:46 <virl> personally I would say the expression is 2 3 + 4 3 * 5 - /
09:59:52 <Quartus> But yes, picking arbitrary and random examples out of the air is useless.  Find something you want to write, and get to it.
09:59:52 <virl> eh..
10:00:02 <rabbitwhite> quartus that is such a good idea
10:00:46 <virl> x @ y @ + 3 4 * n @ - /
10:02:23 <erider> quartus do you know of and other implementation that creates standalone programs for linux?
10:02:50 <erider> s/and/any
10:02:58 <Quartus> virl, order of operations requires left-to-right execution for an infix expression.  The (x+y) happens first, the /3 happens before the 4*, and both happen before the -n.
10:03:38 <Quartus> erider, as I recall retroforth can save itself as an executable under linux.  Ask crc.
10:04:31 <Quartus> virl, your postfix there would be (x+y)/(3*4-n)
10:04:49 <erider> the turnkey thingy I think you are talking about 
10:04:55 <Quartus> Right.
10:05:04 <erider> hmm
10:05:09 <virl> ok, that's true
10:05:53 <erider> its easy to get confused I guess 
10:06:33 <Quartus> It's not complex to do the translations by hand, but if you find you do a lot of them, there are infix translators.  OPG is one for floats, and there are at least two others for integers.
10:07:02 <Quartus> Unless you're translating a lot of code from another language (say, Fortran), it won't come up much.
10:07:52 <Quartus> I wrote an infix translator -- it quite happily converts.     expr  (x+y)*3/4-n   ->  x @ y @ 3 * 4 / n @ -
10:08:25 <rabbitwhite> what if x y and n are constants or calculated values
10:08:41 <Quartus> It's just an expression translator, not a mind-reader. :)
10:08:52 <erider> lol
10:09:25 <rabbitwhite> oh, wee
10:10:09 <erider> Q what do you use forth for on a regular day like today?
10:10:53 <erider> I know you guys are working on the gtk and that is exciting 
10:10:55 <Quartus> In OPG: LET x = (-b - SQRT(b*{FDUP}-4*a*c)) / (2*a): -> b F@  FNEGATE  b F@  FDUP F*  4.E a F@  F*  c F@  F*  F-  FSQRT F- 2.E a F@  F*  F/  x F!
10:11:20 <Quartus> I'm not working on gtk.  I have a few projects underway, the most active of which is the book I'm writing on Forth.
10:12:27 <erider> cool! what platform are you going to target 
10:12:33 <Quartus> Standard Forth.
10:15:09 <erider> for beginners or advanced topics or what?
10:15:17 <Quartus> Hoping to address both audiences.
10:17:50 <erider> cool!
10:21:25 --- join: madwork (n=foo@204.138.110.15) joined #forth
10:37:14 <rabbitwhite> ugh bye
10:37:30 <Quartus> cya
10:40:47 <erider> caio 
10:45:38 --- join: mikett (n=nobody@80-195-208-58.cable.ubr14.live.blueyonder.co.uk) joined #forth
10:46:11 --- part: mikett left #forth
10:48:39 <jackokring> i'm moving this weekend, will be out of touch till the wifi hop is up again may the forth be with u
10:49:18 <jackokring> bye bye
10:50:31 --- quit: jackokring ("Bersirc 2.2, for external use only. [ http://www.bersirc.org/ - Open Source IRC ]")
11:06:40 --- join: jennyb (i=webmaste@figuk.plus.com) joined #forth
11:09:23 <Quartus> Hey, Jenny.  Neal Bridges here.
11:09:46 <Quartus> How's FIG UK today?
11:09:53 <jennyb> Thought that was you!
11:10:16 <jennyb> Still just about there!
11:10:44 <Quartus> Good deal. :)
11:11:31 <jennyb> What is the difference between the forth and #forth rooms?
11:11:40 <Quartus> I didn't know there was another one.
11:12:03 <Quartus> All the official or quasi-official language channels start with #.
11:12:26 <Quartus> On freenode, anyway.  Naming convention.
11:13:29 --- join: alexshendi (n=alexshen@dslb-084-056-173-041.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth
11:17:49 <jennyb> This is confusing. The other one is called #forth, but is billed as unofficial
11:17:55 <Quartus> This one is #forth.
11:18:19 <Quartus> I just checked; there is no channel named 'forth' without the #.
11:18:50 <Quartus> This channel is, strictly speaking, unofficial.
11:22:05 <jennyb> It seems the channel we used to use with FIG UK is gone. I was looking for another home
11:22:16 <Quartus> Wasn't that on a different IRC server entirely?
11:22:37 <jennyb> Yes, IRCNet
11:22:42 <Quartus> You're certainly welcome here.
11:22:56 <Quartus> Bring all your Forth friends. :)
11:25:29 <virl> who has experiences with the SeaForth simulator?
11:26:01 <Quartus> I think it was Ambidian who posted questions about the T18 simulator stuff in c.l.f.
11:26:22 --- quit: jcw (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
11:27:49 <arke> jennyb, the other one is for the "cool" people :)
11:28:17 <arke> actually, according to freeenode policy, this should be a "##" channel, not a "#" channel
11:28:24 <arke> but nobody cares :)
11:29:22 <arke> so you have the official unofficial channel and the unofficial official unofficial channel
11:29:45 <Quartus> I didn't realize there was a ##forth.
11:29:50 <Quartus> I see two or three people hiding out there.
11:29:57 <arke> more than two or three
11:30:03 <arke> 12
11:30:10 <Quartus> Five show in the /names right now.
11:30:31 <Quartus> What mysterious things happen there?
11:30:31 <arke> then theres 7 with +i
11:30:56 <arke> forth talk
11:31:14 <Quartus> A likely story.
11:31:43 <Quartus> Oh. There were 5 when I checked; the count is up now.
11:31:57 <arke>  /names doesnt show everybody
11:32:16 <Quartus> Seems kind of bizarre to split the Forth discussion across two channels.
11:32:38 <arke> It has its reasons.
11:32:54 <Quartus> I've asked what those are over in ##forth, in case it's secret clubhouse business.
11:33:12 <jennyb> Does MikeT turn up here or there?
11:33:20 <Quartus> Haven't seen that nick, jennyb.
11:34:01 <arke> ##forth is open for everybody, just like #fort is
11:34:33 <erider> jennyb: be is a girls name 
11:34:53 <erider> jennyb: is a girls name
11:35:00 <Quartus> erider, nothing gets past you!
11:35:05 <erider> lol 
11:35:32 <arke> we need a "no shit, sherlock" smiley
11:35:44 <erider> I like talking to programmers who are girls they see things differently 
11:35:56 <jennyb> I have a FigUK forum that's just opening to the public. He mentioned There is a Forth chat active on IRC at 
11:35:56 <jennyb> irc.eu.freenode.net 
11:35:56 <jennyb> port 6667 
11:35:56 <jennyb> #forth
11:36:19 <arke> erider, get your hand out of your pants and shaddap :)
11:36:31 <arke> jennyb, yeah, thats this one.
11:36:35 <erider> LOL!
11:36:39 <Ray_work> whaaa?
11:37:22 <Ray_work> yikes I'm way behind. I was 'whaaa' -n about something that was an hour or more ago.
11:39:02 <arke> Heh.
11:39:06 <jennyb> Thanks, I'll change the address on the old website.
11:39:12 <Ray_work> Something arke was saying about Habeas Corpus?
11:39:31 <arke> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg&eurl=
11:39:32 <Quartus> jennyb, I was looking for a 1998 ForthWrite the other day; I see the archives don't go back that far.
11:39:44 <arke> Ray_work, that link
11:40:43 <Quartus> I wound up finding the article translated into German, and read that.  Which was no fun. :)
11:41:12 <jennyb> Which one was it?
11:41:28 <Quartus> An article on Genetix that quoted me.
11:41:34 <Quartus> Jakeman's.
11:42:36 <jennyb> I have that upstairs
11:42:54 <Quartus> I'd like a copy at some point, if it's convenient.
11:44:31 <jennyb> Email me. The address is on c.l.f.
11:45:13 <Quartus> Done.
11:45:31 * Quartus_ goes mobile
11:52:22 <zpg> hey
11:53:21 <Quartus_> hey zpg
11:53:24 <zpg> hi Quartus_
11:54:51 <zpg> to answer your earlier question -- writing some buggy list code; for the first time, resetting brought me into a boot loop.
11:54:58 <Quartus_> what was crashing for you earlier?
11:55:17 <zpg> i was writing a new free-list word.
11:55:23 <zpg> perhaps i freed something i shouldn't have.
11:55:23 <Quartus_> ah. That's not easy to achieve; congratulations :)
11:55:28 <zpg> heh thank you
11:56:15 <zpg> hotsyncing after that was idiosyncratic... i ended up copying my backups and deleting the original folder. all the memo data re-sync'd (though i lost the more recent code, written over the past 24 hours) and then just re-installed QF and a few other apps.
11:56:55 <Quartus_> I recommend a good full-backup tool, like pilot-xfer or Backup Buddy.
11:57:15 <zpg> are either mac/unix compat?
11:57:49 <Quartus_> Pilot-xfer is unix.
11:58:08 <Quartus_> also win32, not aware of a mac port but there may be one.
11:58:24 <Quartus_> it's part of pilot-tools, as I recall.
11:59:16 <zpg> ah ok. will look into it.
11:59:40 <Quartus_> backup buddy will back up to sd, which is handy.
12:01:32 --- join: jcw (n=jcw@adsl-065-006-151-062.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) joined #forth
12:05:33 <zpg> oh that's neat.
12:07:35 <Quartus_> did you try holding down the up button on the reset?
12:08:55 <zpg> oh yes, that's how i restord my system in the end.
12:08:59 <zpg> *+e
12:09:12 <zpg> reset+power then up to erase.
12:09:24 <Quartus_> you mean the power button, or the up button?
12:09:47 <zpg> reset held in, power button pushed, reset released, power released. then given the choice of up or down.
12:10:32 <Quartus_> ok. I mean up by itself, not the power button. It does a soft reset instead of a hard.
12:11:13 <zpg> ah ok
12:11:24 <zpg> so one has three options? normal reset, soft reset, hard reset?
12:14:00 <zpg> incidentally, i have some forth source that uses ?allot -- does this just allot but leave the stack unchanged?
12:15:06 <zpg> oh, never mind --> : ?allot HERE SWAP ALLOT ;
12:19:06 <zpg> and on the palm front --> soft, warm, hard.
12:19:21 <zpg> (i didn't know about the up button option, so had assumed it was soft-hard)
12:31:45 --- part: jennyb left #forth
12:32:52 --- join: erider_ (n=erider@unaffiliated/erider) joined #forth
12:33:06 --- quit: erider (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
12:38:18 --- nick: erider_ -> erider
12:46:48 --- quit: alexshendi ("This computer has gone to sleep")
12:49:30 --- quit: rabbitwhite ()
13:10:01 <Quartus_> zpg, I'm really not clear on ?allot. The name suggests conditional behaviour but the definition does not.
13:18:03 <zpg> indeed. i thought it might just preserve the TOS, but the definition clearly isn't for that.
13:22:08 <Quartus_> poorly named.
13:31:00 * zpg nods
13:43:34 <k4jcw> I don't know about conditional behavior, and while I agree it's poorly named, the ? says to me "what is?" since it returns a pointer to the start of the space it allots.
14:00:56 --- join: timlarson (n=timlarso@user-12l325b.cable.mindspring.com) joined #forth
14:02:31 <Quartus_> Conventional forth naming says a leading ? indicates conditional behaviour.
14:06:19 <k4jcw> !#*$@#!allot
14:06:45 <k4jcw> or "Just gimme the freakin' memory, already!"
14:13:29 --- join: I440r_ (n=mark4@67.135.84.40) joined #forth
14:16:34 --- join: vatic (n=chatzill@ool-45740b1c.dyn.optonline.net) joined #forth
14:19:32 <Quartus_> heh
14:32:16 --- quit: Cheery ("Download Gaim: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/")
14:37:22 <vatic> Quartus_: hey!
14:44:14 <zpg> hi vatic.
14:45:28 <vatic> zpg: hey!
14:46:47 <vatic> zpg: gotta duck out, but I'll be back later...
14:47:00 --- nick: vatic -> vatic_away
14:47:16 <zpg> i get that a lot ;)
14:54:57 --- quit: Ray_work ("User pushed the X - because it's Xtra, baby")
15:07:44 --- quit: segher (Nick collision from services.)
15:07:56 --- join: segher (n=segher@dslb-084-056-143-156.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth
15:19:10 <zpg> and now ... a@ isn't found ... i think it's time to test kforth programmes in kforth.
15:20:15 <Quartus_> kforth has a bunch of non-standard stuff. It's not a standard system.
15:20:58 <Quartus_> if I'm remembering the right ?Forth, anyway :) mobile right now
15:21:16 <I440r_> your doing irc on your palm ?
15:21:17 <zpg> heh ok. well, i want to check out this neural net implementation.
15:21:32 <Quartus_> I seem to recall a broken create/does.
15:21:42 <I440r_> broken how ?
15:22:01 <I440r_> is it create thats broken or does> ?
15:22:24 <Quartus_> in the kforth docs. Can't have a does> that contains a does>, I think.
15:22:38 <Quartus_> dunno, maybe both.
15:23:10 <Quartus_> at any rate kforth doesn't claim compliance, so no worries.
15:23:31 <zpg> incidentally, if i wanted string concatenation i'd just write a very simple word that takes two strings and cats them, right?
15:23:37 <zpg> (there's no inbuilt word, i take it)
15:23:51 <Quartus_> zpg, I'd use append.
15:23:58 <zpg> looking...
15:24:13 <Quartus_> it's common-usage.
15:24:13 <zpg> not ANS...
15:24:21 <I440r_> ok, isforths does> can contain a does> but i think its a bit silly to code like that lol
15:24:38 <zpg> ah, http://www.albany.net/~hello/comus.htm#append
15:24:42 <I440r_> why does ans specify that you must be able to places a does> inside a does> ?
15:25:12 <Quartus_> i440, It's not stated, just a natural side-effect of implementing it with Standard semantics.
15:25:32 <I440r_> : silly-constant-creation create , does> @ create , does> @ ;
15:25:44 <I440r_> i cant see any actual valid use for something like the above
15:25:51 <zpg> sorry, we've covered this before but: (addr u -> counted), is there a word that does this, or do i just unpack the counted string myself?
15:25:52 <I440r_> oh okj
15:26:17 <I440r_> ya. isforth will allow it - i cant think of a way to implement does> that doesnt support it hehe
15:26:20 <zpg> erm, counted -> addr u   i mean
15:26:29 <Quartus_> oh, you could do that. But I'm thinking of : foo does> ... ; or : bar create ... does> ... does> ... ;
15:26:57 <Quartus_> zpg, I think you mean pack, not unpack. Place is the common-usage word.
15:27:23 <I440r_> the first does is called at create time. the second does is called by the created word which itself would probably need to be a creating word
15:27:45 <Quartus_> Zpg -- for the correction, count is the word you want.
15:28:13 <zpg> yes, i saw COUNT. and asked for the word that did the opposite while seemingly describing count's features.
15:28:24 <zpg> i seem to do this a lot :)
15:28:34 <Quartus_> i440r, does> can be in a word separate from create.
15:28:54 <zpg> thanks for the APPEND and PLACE pointers.
15:28:54 <Quartus_> place and count are opposites.
15:28:59 <zpg> indeed.
15:29:01 <I440r_> but it patches the most recently created word so it cant be TOTALLY separated from the creation :)
15:29:27 <zpg> right, off for a bit. thanks again.
15:30:19 <Quartus> but it can be:   : foo create , ;   : bar does> @ . ;     then 42 foo wokka  bar  wokka -> 42
15:30:55 <I440r_> ya
15:31:39 --- quit: I440r (Nick collision from services.)
15:31:44 --- nick: I440r_ -> I440r
15:31:55 --- mode: ChanServ set +o I440r
15:32:42 --- join: edrx (n=Eduardo@20151074195.user.veloxzone.com.br) joined #forth
15:33:08 <edrx> I440r: hi - I can't pvtmsg you because I'm not registered
15:33:21 <edrx> I haven't chatted with him in ages
15:33:35 <I440r> aha ok lol (let it be known that i think the requirement to register is TOTALLY GHEY!!!)
15:33:38 <I440r> yea me either.
15:33:43 <I440r> im wondering if he is still alive 
15:33:55 <edrx> 8-|
15:35:09 --- join: I440r__ (n=mark4@65.244.197.34) joined #forth
15:35:23 <Quartus> You can also do this weird sort of thing:     : foo create , ;  : bar does> @ . does> @ 1+ . ;    42 foo wokka bar  wokka wokka -> 42 43
15:35:47 <Quartus> And let me just say 'wokka bar wokka wokka' just for fun.
15:35:55 <I440r> ok isforth would NOT support that
15:36:11 <I440r> the second does> would not leave the address of the original compiled constant on the stack
15:36:23 <I440r> tho i can see a use for that!~
15:36:31 <Quartus> Sure.  But a standard implementation has no barrier to having one does> clause containing another does> clause, ad infinitum.
15:36:31 <I440r> maybe.
15:36:55 <I440r> does> @ does> 1 +! ;
15:37:01 <I440r> an auto incrementing variable?
15:37:08 <Quartus> You can do that without two does> clauses.
15:37:10 <I440r> tho i would do that as does> dup @ swap 1 +! ;
15:37:35 <I440r> actually isforth has INCR which basically does a 1 +!
15:37:41 <Quartus> Don't you mean  1 swap +!  ?      : counter  create ,  does> dup @ 1 rot +! ;
15:37:47 <I440r> ya
15:38:08 <Quartus> The point of having a does> contain a does> would be to define new defining words.
15:38:12 <I440r> does> dup @ swap incr ;
15:38:20 <I440r> yes 
15:39:07 <Quartus> It's one thing that separates the men from the boys, Forth-wise.  Most knocked-together Forths have a lesser create/does> setup that contains only part of the functionality.
15:39:25 --- part: edrx left #forth
15:40:17 <I440r> isforths does> compiles a "call dodoes" and then patches the most recently created word to call that call
15:40:33 <I440r> would that be a standard compliant does> ?
15:40:45 <Quartus> Not sure I follow that.  Surely the patching happens when the word containing the dodoes is executed?
15:41:11 <I440r> ok does> is an immediate word. it assembles "call dodoes" 
15:41:48 <I440r> it then patches the cfa of the most recently created word (usually call dovariable" to be a call to the just assembled called
15:42:20 <Quartus> That's the general idea.  So why doesn't     : bar  does> @ . does> @ 1+ . ;  work in isforth?
15:42:38 <I440r> the patched word leaves its body address on the stack when executed and then the call to dodoes leaves the address of the code of the does> part on the stack
15:43:09 <Quartus> on the stack? That's weird. The CREATE word doesn't automatically its assigned DOES> clause?
15:43:13 <I440r> dodoes pushes si to rstack. pops TOS to si. andf begins interpreting
15:43:17 <Quartus> on the stack? That's weird. The CREATE word doesn't automatically *execute* its assigned DOES> clause?
15:43:34 <I440r> no because does> is an implied exit
15:44:03 <Quartus> I know.  That's not what I mean.  I mean     : foo create , does> @ . ;      5 foo hello    hello . -> 5      is that not what happens in isforth?
15:44:04 <I440r> does references ;code which is an implied exit
15:44:13 <I440r> yes
15:44:14 <Quartus> sorry.  hello -> 5
15:44:19 <I440r> yes
15:44:49 <Quartus> ok. So discussions of isforth's register assignments aside, why would   : foo create ,  does> @ . does> @ 1+ . ;  5 foo hello  hello hello -> 5 6   not work for you?
15:45:41 <I440r> ok....
15:45:56 <I440r> : foo create , does>    \ cmpile time action
15:46:20 <I440r>   @ . does> @ 1+ . ;   \ run time action
15:46:38 <Quartus> create , is also run-time action.
15:46:57 <I440r> its the run time action of the creating word
15:47:01 <Quartus> yeah.
15:47:17 <I440r> making it compile time :P
15:47:18 <Quartus> but yes, you've broken it down right.  The does> clause is   @ . does> @ 1+ .
15:47:48 <I440r> ok let me show you my does> implementation :)
15:47:59 <Quartus> have you tried that code? does it bomb out?
15:48:20 <crc> it seems to work for me in isforth...
15:48:25 <I440r> : ;code  r> last @ name> 1+ dup>r 4+ - r> ! ;
15:48:34 <I440r> : does> compile lcode ,call dodoes ;
15:48:40 <I440r> erm thats compile ;code
15:48:45 <I440r> so... when you do
15:48:50 <I440r> : constant create , does> @ ;
15:48:53 <I440r> what you end up with is
15:48:56 <I440r> constant:
15:48:58 <I440r>   dd create
15:49:00 <I440r>  dd comma
15:49:05 <I440r>   call dodoes
15:49:08 <I440r>   dd @
15:49:11 <I440r>  dd exit
15:49:21 <I440r> sorry about the wopbbly indentation lol
15:49:35 <I440r> erm no im lying
15:49:37 <I440r> its
15:49:41 <I440r> constant:
15:49:44 <I440r>   dd create
15:49:47 <I440r>   dd comma
15:49:50 <I440r>   dd ;code
15:50:05 <I440r>   call dodoes
15:50:09 <I440r>   dd @
15:50:11 <I440r>   dd exit
15:50:47 <I440r> so when you run constant it creates the word, commas in the value then the ;code patches that newly created word to call the "call dodoes" immediatly following it
15:50:54 <Quartus> Yeah, that looks more-or-less typical.  The practical upshot -- if that line above prints 5 6, and it's kosher to have your does> in a separate word like : bar does> ... ;, then you're likely ANS compliant.  There are a few other tests but they're not peculiar.
15:51:31 <I440r> if you had does> @ does> whatever ; then you will have
15:51:34 <Quartus> for instance,  create t here t = . -> -1    and things like that
15:51:40 <I440r>   dd ;code
15:51:43 <I440r>   call dodoes
15:51:47 <I440r>   dd @
15:52:04 <I440r>   dd ;code   
15:52:08 <I440r>   dd call dodoes
15:52:16 <I440r>   dd whatever  (no dd above sorry)
15:52:38 <I440r> the second call to dodoes would NOT execute using the same paramter as the first
15:52:58 <Quartus> dodoes takes a parameter?
15:53:08 <I440r> the call to dodoes does
15:53:20 <I440r> the body address of the created word
15:53:27 <Quartus> which it gets from last.
15:53:34 <I440r> no
15:53:42 <I440r> which it gets from the stack at runtime
15:53:53 <Quartus> Can you try the line I posted above in isforth?  crc says it worked.
15:54:12 <I440r> it most definatly should not work - im not in linux atm
15:54:27 <I440r> but if im understanding how you say it should work it most definatly shouldnt work that way
15:54:44 <Quartus> You lost me somewhere, I can't for the life of me see why dodoes should need anything on the stack.  It's just supposed to take the last-created word, and assign the following code to it.
15:55:00 <I440r> no. DOES> uses last
15:55:06 <I440r> ok let me give you an example
15:55:19 <I440r>   create foo   \ this is presently a variable
15:55:27 <I440r> : fudge does> @ ;
15:55:32 <Quartus> last-CREATEd, in fact, which might be a different animal than last.  But that's a minor point.
15:55:51 <Quartus> create foo isn't a variable, it has no space allotted.
15:55:52 <I440r> erm sorry create foo some-vale ,
15:56:00 <Quartus> ok.
15:56:19 <I440r> its still a variable in that its cfa is "call dovariable"
15:56:27 <Quartus> you know what I mean.
15:56:32 <I440r> ya
15:56:38 <I440r> which is why i corrected it hehe
15:56:40 <I440r> now...
15:56:49 <I440r> let me start over
15:56:57 <I440r> : fudge does> @ ;
15:57:12 <I440r> create foo 2 , fudge
15:57:26 <Quartus> Right. Now foo is a self-fetching variable, or a constant.
15:57:31 <I440r> when fudge executes IT looks in "last" and sees the NFA of "foo"
15:57:40 <Quartus> Right.
15:57:44 <I440r> from the nfa it derives the cfa and patches said cfa
15:57:46 <Quartus> Right.
15:57:59 <I440r> when you execute foo it does a call to a call dodoes
15:58:07 <Quartus> Which looks in "last" and yadda yadda.
15:58:10 <I440r> the call dodoes containe4d within fudge
15:58:12 <I440r> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
15:58:17 <I440r> it does not look in last
15:58:27 <I440r> because at RUN TIME you dont know WHERE last is
15:58:39 <Quartus> oh, I misread you.  Thought you said foo.  But in that case, not right.  fudge does not look in last.  Fudge is a created word.
15:58:55 <I440r> stop
15:58:57 <Quartus> Crap.  Can you start over with two words that don't start with f?
15:59:04 <I440r> fudge is the creating word lol
15:59:09 <I440r> ya lol
15:59:18 <Quartus> jeepers.  Start again.   : bar does> @ ;
15:59:21 <I440r> : make-it-a-constant does> @ ;
15:59:29 <Quartus> ok
15:59:35 <I440r> create blah 2 ,
15:59:41 <Quartus> ok stop for a second.
15:59:41 <I440r> make-it-a-constant
15:59:45 <I440r> variable mux
15:59:55 <I440r> ok
16:00:10 <Quartus> create blah 2 ,       blah is equivalent to a variable.
16:00:21 <Quartus> make-it-a-constant      now blah is equivalent to a constant.
16:00:27 <Quartus> Right?
16:00:33 <I440r> yes but i didnt want to use "variable" in that case
16:00:39 <I440r> because it isnt GOING to be a variable :)
16:00:46 <Quartus> Sure. But my description is valid.
16:00:50 <I440r> yes
16:01:19 <Quartus> Ok.  make-it-a-constant, when it runs, executes dodoes.  Dodoes looks in 'last', finds the NFA of blah, derives the CFA of that, and points it at the code following dodoes.
16:01:28 <I440r> ok. when you execute "make-it" the most recently created word (blah) is patched 
16:01:44 <I440r> when you run blah IT does not look in last because by then mux will have been created
16:01:50 <Quartus> Right.
16:02:06 <Quartus> But if instead you did : make-it-funky  does> @ . does> @ 1+ . ;
16:02:15 <Quartus> Then    create blah 2 , make-it-funky
16:02:42 <I440r> ohhh hehe
16:02:52 <Quartus> make-it-funky would call dodoes, find 'last', patch the CFA with the address of the '@ . does> @ 1+ .' code.
16:02:56 <I440r> then when you ran blah it would run the SECOND does> part only
16:03:01 <Quartus> Then blah -> 2
16:03:05 <I440r> no thats not right
16:03:06 <I440r> stop
16:03:25 <Quartus> blah runs, fetches the address, prints a two, then calls dodoes, which looks up 'last', which is still blah, finds its CFA, patches it to point at the '@ 1+ .' code.
16:03:30 <I440r> make-it-funky is BAD - let me show you why
16:03:34 <Quartus> Then blah -> 3
16:03:40 <I440r> expanding on your example (stop a sec :)
16:04:01 <I440r> : make-it-funky does> @ does> @ 1+ ;
16:04:17 <I440r>  variable blah make-it-funky
16:04:19 <Quartus> well, no,  does> @ . does> @ 1+ .   so you can see the effect immediatly, but same general idea.
16:04:20 <I440r> variable fudge
16:04:21 <I440r> blah
16:04:40 <Quartus> Right, blah would reassign the last created word no matter what it is.  
16:04:42 <I440r> when blah executes it will execuyte the first does> part and will return the body contents of blah
16:04:58 <I440r> it would then PATCH FUDGE !!!
16:05:07 <I440r> when fudge executed it would does> the second does>
16:05:39 <Quartus> Yes.
16:06:06 <I440r> which is a totally funked up way of coding ANYTHING lol
16:06:15 <I440r> it looks like an accident waiting for an idiot to happen
16:06:27 <Quartus> This example is completely spurious and illustrative, but in fact it's a way to write a defining word that creates new defining words.
16:06:36 <I440r> i think does>  .... does> .... is a dangerous construct
16:07:01 <Quartus> Maybe it is, but it's a required behaviour of a compliant implementation.  I bet yours works.
16:07:38 <I440r> it does do that
16:07:46 <Quartus> Consider     : foo create ... does> ... create ... does> ... ;   foo will define a word that defines new words.
16:08:01 <I440r> but thats not what i understood to be the way you were saying it should behave
16:08:04 <Quartus> I mean, I bet yours is compliant.
16:08:13 <I440r> yes 
16:08:44 <Quartus> Well, in the hello hello example, it prints 5 6 because it reassigns its own does> behaviour.  Of course it would do the same for any subsequent created after which it was executed, which is why it's a spurious example simply designed to test for the required behaviour.
16:08:45 <I440r> but your exampele above does> @ does> @ 1+ ; being used to create a word taht returns X and X+1 is totally not now it would work in isforth 
16:09:08 <I440r> in fact i cant see how that would work anywhere lol
16:09:17 <Quartus> no, it's not being used to create a word that returns x and x+1.  I'm calling the word twice.  First time, it prints x and reassigns its DOES>, so the second time it prints x+1.
16:09:30 <Quartus> If you prefer,     hello -> 5  hello -> 6
16:09:54 <I440r> ok but only if you execute the created word immediatly after it was created
16:09:59 <Quartus> yeah, as I did.
16:10:10 <Quartus> Again, just an illustration to demonstrate the required behaviour.
16:10:32 <Quartus> It's a natural offshoot of building it properly.  But many weekend Forths don't build it properly.  Some can't even have DOES> in a word separate from the CREATE.
16:10:35 <I440r> ok IMHO creating a creating word that requires you execute the said created word immediatly after it was created is VERY BAD!!!!
16:10:50 <I440r> someone will neglect to do it one time and will have a very difficult bug to find :)
16:11:06 <Quartus> I440r, stand back from the phosphor dots a foot or two.  I'm not recommending it as a programming technique, or suggesting that the example as given has any utility outside of being illustrative of the required behaviour of DOES>.
16:11:18 <I440r> having a spec that requires that you have something that is likely to cause you to shoot yourself in the foot is bad
16:11:39 <I440r> having a requirement to allow you to do so is good. but requiring you to possibly do so is bad
16:11:44 <Quartus> Having a spec that disallowed DOES> after DOES> would be odd, restrictive, and awkward.
16:12:33 <I440r> no.  i didnt say it should be disallowed.  it should be allowed.  "unix was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things because that would stop you from doing clever things"
16:12:41 <I440r> what you ahve isnt "we allow you to do stupid things"
16:12:43 <I440r> what you have is "
16:12:50 <Quartus> It would also have to disallow    : constant  create , does> @ ;  : foo  create , does> @ 2* constant ;  and any other construction where a does> clause, however inadvertently, called another does> clause.
16:13:00 <I440r> no
16:13:08 <I440r> not disallowing is not the same as MUST ALLOW
16:13:16 <Quartus> Either a does> clause can contain another does> clause, or it can't.
16:13:54 <I440r> the spec should have nothing to say on this
16:14:13 <Quartus> Then how do you answer the question of whether it's compliant to have a does> clause that contains another does> clause?
16:14:21 <I440r> it should not require you to support it but it also shouldnt disallow you from doing so
16:14:27 <I440r> i.e. it should not specify one way or the other
16:14:54 <Quartus> Fantastic.  So if I'm writing a defining word that creates defining words, I have to bend over in several directions at once to accomodate systems that may, or may not, allow me to call another does> clause from inside the first.  
16:14:59 --- nick: vatic_away -> vatic
16:15:10 <Quartus> Thanks, I'll go with the specification.
16:15:45 <I440r> ok. have you ever created a defining word that creates defining words ?
16:15:50 <Quartus> I have.
16:16:03 <I440r> show me ?
16:16:17 <Quartus> I'd have to ferret around in my sources to dig it up.  It's not something I do often.
16:16:40 <I440r> i would expect not, i would also think it could be done better
16:17:00 <I440r> requiring defining defining words is like requiring defining defining defining defining words
16:17:05 <Quartus> Consider a system where a does> clause can't contain another does> clause.  How would you build something that broken?  After all, the one you built, ignorant of the standard, is already compliant.
16:17:09 <I440r> when do you stop requiring?
16:17:13 <Quartus> You don't.
16:17:42 <Quartus> Systems that can't have a does> call a does> are broken in strange ways; it's very likely that the breakage means other aspects won't behave in an expected way, either.
16:17:47 <I440r> so i am required to support (*assume compliance is important to me) words that create creating words that create creating words ad infinitum ?
16:17:49 <Quartus> Like, for instance, being able to have does> in its own word.
16:17:51 <I440r> im REAQUIRED to support that ?
16:17:53 <I440r> dumb
16:18:05 <I440r> how about not requiring i support stupid coding practices ?
16:18:38 <Quartus> You can't legislate poor practice away.  How would you write DOES> so that it disallowed calling another DOES>?
16:18:55 <I440r> im not saying legislate it AWAY. im sayinag "dont legislate it"
16:19:01 <I440r> i.e. dont require it NOT be present
16:19:06 <I440r> just dont require it present
16:19:15 <I440r> theres a difference
16:19:26 <Quartus> And hence make it that much more difficult to write code you can share.
16:19:38 <I440r> your requiring that my machine have the ability to decapitate me. as opposed to requiring that it not be able to decapitate me
16:19:47 <I440r> if i decapitate mysefl its my fault not the standards
16:19:57 <Quartus> Jesus, Mark.  Go to the wall with it, why don't you.  Why not 'eviscerate'?  Or 'eat babies'?
16:20:08 <I440r> you dont want to require im not able to - i agree
16:20:15 <I440r> but your requiring that i AM able to
16:20:44 <Quartus> Yes.  Even a naive useful implementation of DOES> will have compliant behaviour.  It's broken systems that don't.  That breakage will likely turn up other artifacts, as well.  
16:21:01 <I440r> you should allow me to do it if i chose because to NOT allow it is to restrict me. thats NOT what your doing
16:21:31 <Quartus> I'm not requiring you to do anything at all, I440r.  However, fortuitiously your implementation already does allow this hideous, unthinkable baby-eating behaviour.
16:21:43 <Quartus> According to cr.
16:21:45 <Quartus> crc.
16:21:56 <I440r> you are totally not understanding what im saying lol
16:21:59 * lukeparrish is confused about what is and isn't being allowed
16:22:17 <Quartus> I440r, I'm understanding you.  You're ranting about the Standard making you wear funny pants again.
16:22:29 <I440r> no
16:22:32 <I440r> because it doesnt
16:22:38 <Quartus> You are, however, already wearing the funny pants, by your own choice.
16:22:45 <Quartus> And don't think we didn't notice.
16:23:45 <Quartus> btw, there are SIX new werties on c.l.f.
16:24:15 <I440r> the standard is wrong for requiring i support bad coding practices. it would be good if it said i MAY support them. it saying that i MUST is bad
16:24:25 <I440r> werties ?
16:24:29 <lukeparrish> do they all put a space before question marks ?
16:24:31 <Quartus> messages from werty
16:24:36 <I440r> oh
16:24:44 <I440r> i do that lol
16:24:50 <lukeparrish> :)
16:24:52 <I440r> this is my question xyzzy ?  
16:25:06 <I440r> even tho i know its wrong i still do it sometimes
16:25:12 <Quartus> The standard does not make any mention of bad coding practices, nor any requirement for you to support them.  Being able to define defining words is a strength, not a weakness.  If you don't use it properly, seek higher counsel.
16:25:15 <I440r> usually if im doing ??? or somethign lol
16:25:50 <lukeparrish> hehe, I just noticed that you did it, so I thought I'd bring it up
16:26:03 <I440r> im not werty btw :P
16:26:12 <lukeparrish> werty uses !!! and stuff though
16:26:14 <Quartus> no, he's at least twice as crazy as you are. :)
16:26:18 <lukeparrish> ok, just thought I'd check
16:26:57 <I440r> what messages has he posted 
16:27:07 <I440r> clf doesnt allow me to sort according to poster heh
16:27:08 <Quartus> The standard also requires you to be able to  do 1 0 / despite the fact that the result is undefined.
16:27:35 <Quartus> He responded to a few existing threads.
16:27:43 <I440r> yea. which ones ?
16:28:01 <I440r> mental note: stop putting that space in
16:28:02 <I440r> lol
16:28:08 <Quartus> 'separate : and code dictionaries', 'ANS forth testing', 'simplified immediate'
16:28:27 <Quartus> 'a small wildcard matching algorithm'
16:28:37 <Quartus> 'is there an app server in forth yet'
16:29:39 <Quartus> werty is the ultimate in insane stupidity.  He is the alpha and omega of morons.
16:30:14 <I440r> ok. i think werty types random words in random order
16:30:25 <I440r> we should invite him in here :)
16:30:31 <Quartus> Christ no.
16:30:36 <I440r> lol
16:31:17 <I440r> err he posts the same shit over and over ?
16:31:18 <lukeparrish> Quartus: you almost make him sound cool
16:31:43 <Quartus> Oh yeah, he's the shiznit.
16:32:01 --- join: snoopy_1711 (i=snoopy_1@dslb-084-058-144-191.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth
16:32:27 <I440r> methunkes he hates forth :P
16:32:31 <I440r> and all who code it
16:32:33 --- quit: Snoopy42 (Nick collision from services.)
16:32:49 --- nick: snoopy_1711 -> Snoopy42
16:33:01 <Quartus> Well, he is the greatest systems programmer in the world, after all.
16:33:16 <I440r> true
16:33:34 <I440r> Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one
16:33:34 <I440r> instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every
16:33:34 <I440r> program can be reduced to one instruction which doesn't work
16:33:40 <Quartus> But you and he may bond, he thinks the standard is deliberately slow and bad.
16:33:50 <Quartus> I'm sure he'd buy you a beer if you visit him in Zurich.
16:33:53 <I440r> acvtually the above is wrong
16:34:05 <I440r> every program can be redused to ZERO opcodes that dont work
16:34:26 <I440r> i dont think its deliberatly slow or deliberatly bad
16:34:31 <I440r> but i do thinki its slow and bad :)
16:34:34 <I440r> and overly complex
16:34:42 <Quartus> That'll still get you beer from werty.  He also claims to be rich, so you should horn in. :)
16:34:57 <I440r> a hugely complex solution to a very simple problem even
16:35:06 <I440r> no thanks, i dont drink beer heh
16:35:15 <Quartus> Oh, I'm sure he could find an appropriate libation.
16:35:18 <I440r> im rich too :)
16:35:30 <I440r> but then... if i had $29475082745023743 id be poor
16:35:35 <I440r> so im poor too
16:36:15 <I440r> having money is not what makes me rich and not having a life partner IS what makes me poor :)
16:36:22 <Quartus> I traced back in the pattern-matching thread, found out why the posted implementations are so crappy.  They're one-to-one translations from a C routine.
16:36:35 <I440r> hah
16:36:43 <I440r> ive ported c code to forth
16:36:54 <I440r> it never looks right
16:37:07 <Quartus> I wrote mine in ignorance of the C implementation, so it somehow doesn't have four levels of nested conditionals.  I should go back and add them in. :)
16:37:24 <I440r> yea. you did it all wrong
16:37:25 <I440r> duh
16:37:36 <I440r> anyway, back to work
16:37:43 <Quartus> Anyway, to rewind, and to get you re-started on your rant... oh, dang.  Ok, see you later. :)
16:38:38 <I440r> :)
16:42:21 <Quartus> Anyway -- you can usually spot weekend-forths in the wild by broken create/does> implementations (if they're implemented at all).  It's one of the most powerful items in a Forth, and trickier to implement (esp. properly) than most of the others.
16:43:39 <Quartus> And not necessarily just broken in not being able to have a does> call a does>.
16:44:02 <I440r> its one of the most difficult things to implement for sure. i was using create does> for years without knowing HOW does> worked
16:44:41 <Quartus> So I noted with interest that kForth's create/does> is broken.  Also that Ting left DOES> completely out of his eForth, saying he never used it, so didn't see why it should be there.
16:45:18 <Quartus> I look for it in an implementation; if it works, there's a good chance the rest of the system is sound too.
16:45:28 <I440r> ting isnt too smart for being a genius n all
16:45:45 <I440r> i didnt like his b0rken english documentaiton in fpc at all
16:46:15 <Quartus> I don't know, maybe his DOES>-fu is amazing, but does> is darned handy.  I'd miss it if it were gone.  I wonder what Forth apps he wrote where he never had cause to use it.
16:46:38 <Quartus> And what peculiar work-arounds he used instead.
16:47:06 <Quartus> And whether those were by choice, or because he didn't understand does> well enough to use it, let alone implement it.  All these questions and more, on 'Ting!'
16:48:54 <I440r> you can use ;uses and ;code
16:49:01 <I440r> : constant create , does> @ ;
16:49:01 <I440r> or
16:49:08 <I440r> : constant create , ;uses doconstant ;
16:49:18 <I440r> the latter is actually more efficient
16:49:26 <I440r> and better factored
16:49:43 <I440r> so does> is strictly speaking not required
16:49:52 <I440r> you con do
16:50:03 <I440r> : foo create , does> lots of stuff here ;
16:50:03 <I440r> or
16:50:08 <I440r> : stuff lots of stuff here ;
16:50:13 <I440r> : foo create ;uses stuff ;
16:50:24 * vatic would take werty over the Forth-inspired poetry and $400 teddy bears anyday...
16:50:41 <I440r> 100 bottles of beer was cool!
16:50:42 <I440r> lol
16:52:52 <Quartus> I440r, that's not appreciably different from having DOES>, in terms of implementation.  You could build one from the other in about 23 seconds.
16:53:06 <Quartus> vatic, the poetry put the fear into me.
16:53:18 <I440r> yes but if does> was not there i wouldnt MISS it exactly heh
16:53:46 <vatic> Quartus: yes, it REALLY creeped me out.
16:53:46 <I440r> but i implemented it in isforth because it gives the user a choice. and a good one
16:53:50 <Quartus> I mean to say, if DOES> was missing it would need re-inventing.  It (or its work-around equivalent) is useful.
16:54:04 <I440r> did cm invent does> ?
16:54:09 <I440r> or did someone come along later ?
16:54:16 <I440r> argh theres taht space again lol
16:54:48 <Quartus> The early stuff was <BUILDS DOES> with somewhat different semantics.
16:55:00 <I440r> yes but did cm invent it ?
16:55:03 <Quartus> Yes.
16:55:06 <I440r> ok
16:55:22 <Quartus> CREATE/DOES> is in FIG, and it is based on Moore's stuff.
16:56:50 <Quartus> Actually looking it over I'm not sure the FIG DOES> works with CREATE.  Hmm.
16:57:20 <I440r> it used <builds i believe
16:57:25 <I440r> i think create is a 79ism
16:59:57 <Quartus> Ah here we go.  microForth, which was Forth, Inc., mostly by Dean Sanderson in 1977-1978, had <BUILDS DOES> that later evolved into CREATE DOES>.
17:00:21 <Quartus> microForth was based on Chuck's original miniForth.
17:00:47 <I440r> aha
17:02:02 <Quartus> Question then comes, did miniForth (originally just called Forth) have <builds does> or some relative of it?
17:03:24 <Quartus> Looks like yes.  Moore: "The word DOES> appeared (spelled ;: )."
17:03:59 <I440r> ewww
17:04:12 <Quartus> So he did invent it.  Yes, bad name.
17:04:24 <I440r> he corrected names of certain words over time
17:04:53 <I440r> but i think "AND" "OR" and friends should use the C operator names
17:05:02 <I440r> i implemented that in isforth for a while but ppl complained
17:05:12 <Quartus> Yeah, I wouldn't like it much.  I don't find C all that readable.
17:05:20 <I440r> like reading AND when you see & is as problematical as seeing FETCH when you see @
17:05:30 <I440r> its more consice
17:05:34 <I440r> less verbose
17:05:34 <Quartus> ^ says exponentiation to me.  I hate that C has | and || and & and &&, and = and ==.
17:05:57 <I440r> oh no i only had & | ^ ~ etc not && and friends
17:06:03 <Quartus> And + and ++ and - and --, to boot.
17:06:26 <I440r> ++ is a good name for what i currently call INCR
17:06:28 <Quartus> well, a few aliases and you're off to the races, though I'd find such source hard to read.
17:06:33 <I440r>  ( a1 --- ) 
17:06:35 <Quartus> It's only a good name if you're steeped in C.
17:06:38 <I440r> increments contents of address a1
17:06:47 <I440r> no. its a good name not because of C
17:06:50 <I440r> because its SMALL
17:07:05 <Quartus> It's not descriptive, in and of itself, unless you already are familiar with it from C.
17:07:16 <I440r> would you prefer x y * or x y multiply
17:07:28 <Quartus> I prefer *, but not because I learned it in C first.
17:07:37 <Quartus> (Learned it in BASIC first, actually). :)
17:07:39 <I440r> exactly
17:07:49 <I440r> c has no bearing on this
17:08:01 <Quartus> The * / + and - have long historical usage as mathematical symbols, predating any computer languages.
17:08:02 <I440r> & is widely known as an AND word
17:08:25 <Quartus> (yes, even the *)
17:08:47 <I440r> so replacing the forth word "AND" wth & shouldnt pose that much of a problem to anyone IMHO
17:08:52 <I440r> but they bitched so i reverted :)
17:09:21 <Quartus> I don't hate & for and.  | doesn't say OR to me, though, never did.  Nor are ^ or ! or ++ or -- intuitive.
17:09:41 <Quartus> And C pointer syntax was developed to confuse.
17:09:47 <I440r> yes
17:09:53 <I440r> ugh
17:10:10 <I440r> ill go furthere
17:10:22 <I440r> c was designed to encourage you to shoot yourself in the foot
17:10:28 <I440r> forth was designed to ALLOW you to
17:10:40 <Quartus> It's painful in places.  The operator precedence is borked, too, so you have to defensively parenthesize.
17:10:50 <I440r> heh
17:11:06 <I440r> there should be no precedence at all
17:11:14 <I440r> operators should be first come first served
17:11:35 <zpg> hey
17:11:37 <Quartus> well, there's always going to be precedence, in a Fortran/Algol-derived infix notation.
17:11:43 <Quartus> hey zpg
17:11:55 <Quartus> one of your fellow Britons was here earlier, Jenny Brian from FIG UK.
17:12:20 <zpg> oh, neat.
17:12:36 <Quartus> Apparently the fig IRC channel is unavailable, so I invited them all here.  Perhaps they'll come.
17:13:07 <zpg> that'd be interesting.
17:13:26 <I440r> they should hold their fig meeting here for sure
17:13:35 <I440r> i just wish Chris Flynn was still with them
17:13:38 <I440r> he is my old boss
17:13:57 <zpg> incidentally, if i write "postpone :noname" in a function definition, is there anyway i can say "once the ;" has been compiled in this postponed definition" and have more words following :noname ...?
17:14:14 <Quartus> zpg, you lost me.
17:14:38 <zpg> okay, i've defined a word ==> " : method: postpone :nomame ; "
17:14:45 <zpg> noname, even
17:15:03 <zpg> but what if want code >>here<< ==> " :method: postpone :noname >>here<< ; "
17:15:32 <Quartus> No mame?  What, something against Al Jolson?
17:15:46 <Quartus> You'd postpone or evaluate that code3.
17:15:48 <Quartus> -3
17:16:44 <zpg> yes but if write, say " : method: postpone :noname dup ; ", the dup would feature after the definition has been compiled when one writes " method: swap ; " ?
17:16:52 <I440r> wouldnt that be "no mammy" ?
17:17:08 <Quartus> What the deuce are you trying to do?  Can you back up a few feet and show me what you want to accomplish at the end of all this?
17:17:24 <Quartus> I440r, right.  So this is an anti-game-emulation thing.
17:17:31 <Quartus> No MAME.
17:17:36 <I440r> heh
17:18:08 <zpg> okay, method pool stuff. so, this "method:" word will act as ":" does, but instead of creating a new word, it instead creates a nameless word and then places the word address into a list, for later access.
17:18:45 <zpg> the list will be string-addressable (associative list in other words), hence the postponed word being nameless.
17:18:45 <Quartus> So you want to be able to write         method: swap ;  and have the xt of the noname word containing 'swap' magically inserted in a table somewhere?
17:19:08 <zpg> yes
17:19:19 <zpg> the rest of "method:" would do this.
17:19:43 <Quartus> The xt doesn't show up until the ; so you want this instead:        :noname swap ;method  where  : ;method  postpone ;  <do something with the xt> ;
17:20:15 <zpg> oh, nice.
17:20:29 <Quartus> And by the way, you do not need to postpone :noname.  If you want an alias for :noname, do this:    : method: :noname ;
17:20:35 <Quartus> Then you can type      method: swap ;method
17:20:42 * zpg nods
17:20:48 <Quartus> or m: swap ;m or whatever syntax floats thine boat.
17:20:48 <zpg> yes, this postpone stuff is still new to me.
17:21:20 * zpg reaches for his Palm...
17:21:49 <Quartus> In : ;method  postpone ; ;  you have to postpone ;, or it'll end the definition of ;method.  You want to postpone that action.
17:22:09 <Quartus> And you have to make ;method an immediate word, sorry.  My omission.
17:22:19 <Quartus> : ;method  postpone ; ; immediate
17:22:40 <Quartus> alternatively, in Quartus Forth at least,      ' ; alias ;method
17:23:44 <zpg> why immediate?
17:24:06 <I440r> quartus can you do ' foo alias bar immediate and make bar an immediate version of foo ?
17:24:09 <zpg> so it works in new word definitions after ":" ?
17:24:19 <Quartus> Because when ;method is encountered, there's a definition being built via :noname.  If it's not immediate, a call to ;method will be written into the new word, instead of being executed.
17:24:29 <Quartus> I440r, yes, new header, same xt.
17:24:35 <I440r> ya
17:24:37 <I440r> same same
17:24:46 <zpg> ah ok, i see.
17:25:00 <Quartus> ; itself is immediate.
17:26:36 <I440r> how many bytes in an unsigned short
17:26:36 <I440r> 2 ?
17:26:53 <Quartus> I think 16 bits minimum in a standard C, though I'd have to look that up.
17:27:03 <I440r> ill assume 2 :P
17:27:27 <Quartus> 2 only if each byte has 8, and the machine is byte-addressable. :)
17:27:40 <I440r> heh
17:27:51 <Quartus> And then 'at least 2', would be correct.  Standard C specifies all types as minimums.
17:28:04 <Quartus> So does Standard Forth, actually.
17:28:37 <I440r> one day an unsigned short will be 64k in size
17:28:53 <Quartus> And that man's name was Burt Reynolds.   Page 2.
17:29:04 <I440r> ?
17:29:17 <Quartus> Paul Harvey.  Don't tell me you don't listen to talk radio.
17:29:26 <I440r> im at work. 
17:29:31 <I440r> was that the rest of the story ?
17:29:32 <Quartus> Not right this minute.
17:29:46 <I440r> burts wife died of aids and they blacklisted him because of it
17:29:48 <Quartus> Yes, that's the 'rest of the story' guy.
17:29:51 <I440r> thats why he was not in any movies for years
17:30:03 <I440r> then they found out she got it in a transfusiohn
17:33:38 <Quartus> Where do you get this stuff?  There was a rumour that Reynolds himself had AIDS for awhile, because he was losing weight, but he didn't.  Which of his wives is it that you think died of AIDS?  Judy Carne or Loni Anderson?  Coz they're both still alive.
17:36:20 <I440r> ok, maybe im wrong about that one, i heard it somewhere tho
17:36:26 <Quartus> Don't trust that source.
17:36:33 <I440r> it stuck because burt was a noshow for a very long time
17:38:52 --- join: slava (n=slava@CPE0080ad77a020-CM000e5cdfda14.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth
17:38:52 --- mode: ChanServ set +o slava
17:39:06 <slava> http://factorcode.org/tetris.png
17:39:53 <JasonWoof> heh :) nice
17:41:08 <slava> what's that bash syntax to get a var value and if its not set, return a default?
17:41:22 <slava> ${FOO:blah} or something? (but that doesn't work)
17:41:44 <slava> ${FOO-blah}
17:41:53 * slava just tried random punctuation chars
17:43:54 <Quartus_> six new werties, slava
17:44:02 <slava> i saw them
17:44:35 <Quartus_> they're not new, though. More of a 'best of werty' repeat.
17:45:05 <I440r> does anyone ever flame him on clf ?
17:45:09 <slava> No ! I dont want to hear it !!  I use only CPUs that can access 32 megabytes of RAM !! and have more than 2 index registers !
17:45:18 <slava> as far as I can see, nobody has ever replied to anything he wrote
17:45:32 <slava> Quartus_: I think starting every post with " The worlds greatest systems programmer wrote : " is new
17:45:39 <I440r> that speaks very highly of the ppl on CLF :)
17:45:45 <I440r> or DOESNT speak very highly of them  :)
17:46:34 <Quartus_> he used to end them that way.
17:47:32 <Quartus_> some people have replied, not usefully.
17:48:32 <vatic> slava: when he was talking about some ARM board, I suggested he consider the Linksys nslu-2 which is about 30% of the cost...
17:48:41 <slava> did he call you a LUDDITE?
17:48:44 <slava> or did he tell you to THINK!!!
17:49:46 <JasonWoof> ${FOO:=default}
17:49:58 <vatic> slava: he thanked me sort-of, but he was completely obessed with its Linux, which wasn't my point: it was simply a cheap and well-documented way to work with an ARM chip
17:50:23 <slava> i wonder if he'll ever do anything
17:50:27 <I440r> cheap isnt always good :)
17:50:35 <vatic> slava: it convinced me he really doesn't think very well...
17:50:39 <JasonWoof> nothing is always good
17:50:42 <slava> i think that's clear
17:51:22 <vatic> I440r: find something missing here? http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/Main/HomePage
17:53:25 <vatic> I440r: I've seen SLUGs for $23 at Wal-Mart...
17:54:33 <I440r> whats a SLUG ?
17:55:12 <I440r> aha ok
17:55:23 <vatic> I440r: :-)
17:55:42 <slava> I440r: a SLUG is what i'ma bust in yo ass if you keep talkin' shit foo'
17:55:58 <Quartus_> I think that's a 'cap'.
17:56:23 <vatic> slava: that's a cap, son. I don't think Linksys makes caps.
17:56:53 <zpg> here we call them "locution with an intent to belittle"
17:59:41 <Quartus> I thought British humour was all about bottoms? :)
18:00:36 <Quartus> Benny Hill lied to me.
18:00:37 <zpg> we mix it up to confuse outsiders.
18:02:43 <Quartus> :)
18:14:25 <vatic> http://www.meetyoulater.com/M_show_2462.cfm
18:15:02 <zpg> night all
18:15:06 <Quartus> He claims to be swiss, but I'm suspicious.
18:15:08 <Quartus> cya zpg
18:15:29 --- part: zpg left #forth
18:20:02 <vatic> I'll stop after this one: http://www.lawyerfreelegal.com/provisionalpatent/ReWhataboutaudiochips7310.php
18:20:27 <Quartus> That is him.
18:20:51 <Quartus> Check that one out, slava.
18:22:16 <vatic> Quartus: pretty succinct statement of his beliefs, eh?
18:22:33 <Quartus> Well, only a partial statement.  The Diatribe of Werty runs longer than that.
18:23:50 <slava> "The worlds top programmers can write a PDA OpSys in 1 day ."
18:24:02 <slava> he's been making similar claims for years
18:24:17 <Quartus> Jeepers. It took me two days to get my pattern-matching routine factored.  I must rank pretty low.
18:27:28 <Quartus> Either that or a PDA OpSys is just 'WERTY IS THE GREATE5T SYSTEMZ PROGRAMMER IN DA WORLD! LUDDITES!!!!!!'.  In which case I can write one pretty fast.
18:28:54 --- join: Anbidian (i=never@S0106000fb09cff56.ed.shawcable.net) joined #forth
18:36:24 <Quartus> hey Anbidian
18:36:50 <Anbidian> Evening Quartus.  What's new?
18:37:33 <Quartus> This 'n' that. How about with you?
18:38:40 <Anbidian> Hmm, more of the same really.  Added a "Forth Shirts" section to my site.  
18:39:23 <Anbidian> I was reading up on your site's forum recently.  You really provide great support for Quartus.  I don't know where you find the time.
18:40:18 <Quartus> I buy time in blocks from an outfit in Sheldon, Ohio.
18:41:02 <Quartus> Thanks, though P)
18:41:03 <Quartus> oops
18:41:04 <Quartus> :)
18:41:09 <Anbidian> Heh, how much does that cost? ;)
18:41:20 <Quartus> Depends on the volumes.
18:44:20 <Anbidian> No one has bought a Forth bear yet :|
18:44:29 <Quartus> heh
18:46:51 <Quartus> Perhaps     : morning  begin <picture of sleeping> while <picture of coffee cup> repeat ;
18:48:43 <Anbidian> forgive my ignorance of Forth, wouldn't that repeat "morning" as well?
18:48:50 <Quartus> no.
18:49:01 <Quartus> morning is the name of the definition.
18:49:02 <Quartus> Note the :
18:49:27 <k4jcw> so... coffee puts you to sleep?
18:49:40 <Quartus> No.  While still sleeping, drink coffee.
18:49:41 <Anbidian> *nods*
18:49:49 --- quit: erider (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
18:49:50 <k4jcw> That... would be difficult.
18:49:54 <Quartus> Maybe for you.
18:50:05 <k4jcw> Yes.
18:50:06 <Quartus> I did it for years.  I'd wake up around 10:30, at my desk at the office.
18:50:23 <Quartus> Everything up till then was sleepwalking. :)
18:50:36 <Quartus> Ok,    : morning  begin fully-awake? while coffee drink repeat ;
18:50:39 <Quartus> Too long for a t-shirt, maybe.
18:50:43 <Quartus> oops
18:50:48 <k4jcw> Maybe your alternate personality had the timeslice.
18:50:50 <Quartus> : morning  begin fully-awake? not while coffee drink repeat ;
18:50:54 <k4jcw> Secretly.... YOU ARE WERTY.
18:51:05 <Quartus> Aren't we all werty in some way?
18:51:29 <k4jcw> I was going to "Yes, the same way we all have STDs."  But that didn't sound quite right.
18:51:34 <Quartus> ew.
18:51:50 <Quartus> : werty  1 0 / ;
18:52:10 <k4jcw> I figured it would be something that generated an irrational number.
18:52:31 <Quartus> hmm.  : werty  -1.e0 fsqrt ;
18:52:37 <k4jcw> Anbidian,  URL to your site with T-shirts?
18:53:01 <Quartus> No, that'd make werty NaN.
18:53:04 <Anbidian> http://cafepress.com/forth
18:53:39 <Quartus> : werty  2e fsqrt ;  That's irrational.
18:53:40 <slava>  -1 sqrt .
18:53:40 <slava> C{ 0 1.0 }
18:53:58 <Anbidian> What's the story with this werty chap?  A misguided forth advocate?
18:54:05 <slava> he's insane.
18:54:06 <Quartus> A freaking lunatic with an internet connection.
18:54:12 <k4jcw> http://www.cafepress.com/forth.81998807
18:54:17 <k4jcw> Hey now... no props?
18:54:39 <Anbidian> hahahha
18:54:48 <Anbidian> thanks ;) 
18:55:10 <slava> 400$ for a forth bear? jesus
18:55:22 <Anbidian> I know, it's a steal.  But it wouldn't let me put it any higher
18:55:48 <slava> is the web site written in forth?
18:55:54 <Quartus> The bear should say "My name is Chuck".
18:56:00 <Anbidian> no, I have no idea what it's written in
18:56:25 <Anbidian> you can buy 20 Forth bears for only $8,000
18:56:51 * vatic thinks Werty lives in Thailand...
18:57:04 <Quartus> Switzerland, by his claim.
18:57:10 <Anbidian> Greetings vatic.
18:57:25 <Anbidian> I didn't know what organism to chose for the mock O'Reilly Book cover
18:57:55 <Quartus> Is the Duck-Billed Platypus taken?  That'd be perfect.
18:58:10 <vatic> Quartus: google "werty bangkok." The swissinfo.org address is a small free email service...
18:58:15 <slava> what about a werty?
18:58:21 <Anbidian> Quartus
18:58:38 <Anbidian> : actually I think it is (but don't quote me on that)
18:58:42 <Anbidian> I went with a fly :|
18:59:35 <vatic> Anbidian: hey...
19:00:00 --- quit: virl (Remote closed the connection)
19:00:09 <Anbidian> How's everything vatic?
19:00:22 <vatic> Anbidian: ok, and you?
19:00:36 <Anbidian> Good enough here.
19:00:42 <vatic> good luck with your web site stuff...
19:01:08 <slava> well maybe when i finish the factor web framework you can build your forth store using that ;)
19:02:25 <Anbidian> what OS does factor run on?
19:03:00 <Quartus_> that's cafepress, a 'put logos on junk' portal.
19:03:31 <slava> Anbidian: windows mac and linux
19:03:53 <Anbidian> are you calling Forth bear junk Quartus?! ;)
19:04:00 <Quartus_> I am.
19:04:22 <Quartus_> and I will keep saying it until I receive a free forth bear.
19:04:39 <Anbidian> lol.  Give it some time.  I'm weak.
19:06:22 <Anbidian> Quartus, you use FreeBSD right?
19:06:34 <Quartus_> my hosting service does.
19:07:04 <Quartus_> so I work under it as needed.
19:07:17 <Anbidian> I need to decide what OS to run for a server I am colocating, and I was reading up on FreeBSD and found that there were a lot of problems and unstability with 5.x, do you know if that is accurate?
19:07:26 <slava> i use linux and it works for me.
19:07:36 <slava> and afaik freebsd 5.0 is rock solid these days.
19:08:01 <Quartus_> I know pair uses bsd 4.x, and stability is their #1 concern.
19:08:36 <Anbidian> pair = your host?
19:08:46 <Quartus_> right. Pair.com.
19:09:57 <Anbidian> you on a dedicated server with them?
19:10:07 <Quartus_> shared.
19:10:39 <Anbidian> and they're not hassling you about using too much cpu resources?
19:10:51 <Quartus_> nope.
19:11:02 <Quartus_> why?
19:12:00 <Anbidian> Just curious.  Some hosts force upgrades if your shared account gets too much traffic and uses too much of the cpu
19:13:04 <Quartus_> no, pair is good. Huge bandwidth, big storage allotments, no worries with cpu usage (not that I push it much).
19:13:14 <vatic> "Fish sauce !!  5 years in Thailand .   I know what fish sauce is . It will ruin taste of any food ." -werty
19:13:37 <Anbidian> vatic, do you post on c.l.f.?
19:13:38 <Quartus_> there you go.
19:13:57 <vatic> Anbidian: not often...
19:19:08 --- join: erider (n=erider@unaffiliated/erider) joined #forth
19:23:27 <k4jcw> So, Anbidian, what percentage of the gross do I get for the MILF shirt?
19:24:00 <Anbidian> My calculator cannot display fractions that small :/
19:24:33 <k4jcw> Try the one on Quartus' site for the Palm.  
19:25:36 <Anbidian> it can only be solved as a limit approaching a horizon of virtually zero
19:25:56 <k4jcw> Quartus_,  which Palm emulator would you recommend for Windoze?
19:26:32 * Anbidian guesses POSE
19:26:53 <Quartus_> that's the one.  5.4 simulator is good too.
19:44:53 --- quit: erider ("I don't sleep because sleep is the cousin of death!")
19:54:59 <Quartus> As far as I know there's only one Palm emulator.
19:55:17 --- quit: vatic ("*poof*")
20:03:09 --- quit: I440r__ (Client Quit)
20:12:39 <k4jcw> Huh.  So it looks like I can upgrade my Vx to 4.1.2 using the ROM_Transfer.prc thingie.  At least, without an indepth reading, that's the impression I get.
20:12:52 <Quartus> I did that.
20:13:10 <Quartus> Though I'm not sure of the exact method, now; long time ago.
20:13:28 <k4jcw> It looks like you do it from POSE, with the serial cradle.
20:13:54 <k4jcw> Oh wait, it looks like it's Palm->POSE, not POSE->Palm.
20:13:55 <k4jcw> Foo.
20:14:15 <Quartus> There's a path for upgrading the device ROM, arcane and hard-to-find though the knowledge may be at this late date.
20:14:37 <Quartus> You don't gain much by so doing.
20:14:53 <Quartus> There was an upgrade utility for the purpose; you fed it a .ROM file.
20:15:15 <k4jcw> I'd like to have both devices at the same release level, if nothing else.
20:15:40 <Quartus> Always a risk, updating firmware.
20:17:13 <k4jcw> So they made it possible to brick it?
20:17:23 <Quartus> Anything can be bricked.
20:17:53 <Quartus> I don't know how easy or hard it was, I succeeded in the upgrade.  But I needed to do it, at the time, or I wouldn't have bothered, on general principle.
20:18:01 <k4jcw> Not if it's done correctly.  Many devices have a boot loader in ROM or an area of FLASH that can't be written without hardware jumpers being installed.
20:18:22 <Quartus> It'd be a neat trick to have hardware jumpers on a Palm Vx. :) Back doesn't come off.
20:18:27 <Quartus> Well, it's glued on.
20:18:40 <k4jcw> So there you have it.  A non-upgradable boot loader.
20:19:09 <k4jcw> That's what the lock controller does.  Has an XMODEM loader in ROM.  Unless you fry the thing with ESD, even if you manage to erase the FLASH, it's recoverable.
20:19:34 <Quartus> While it was possible to re-flash the OS, it wasn't a supported feature, as such.  OS patches took the form of loadable PRCs, nothing that flashed.
20:19:41 <k4jcw> ah
20:20:00 <k4jcw> That must be the Upgrade_3.1.1.prc file that's on the V.
20:20:09 <Quartus> Probably.
20:27:12 <Quartus> The Palm Desktop would automatically re-install it if it was missing.
20:34:18 --- quit: jcw ("Client exiting")
20:35:03 <k4jcw> If you're wondering if the pm'ing on your mobile account works, it does.
20:36:31 <Quartus> ok good.  I think it was k5* writing me today.  Didn't parse it fully.
20:36:40 <Quartus> He wrote me and said that Forth didn't have a community.
20:36:54 <Quartus> I thought that'd be an odd thing for you to say, hence my followup. :)
20:37:08 <Quartus> It's an odd thing for anybody to say, in fact, but here we are.
20:37:28 <k4jcw> I think he's sort of odd. 
20:37:31 <k4jcw> And arrogant.
20:37:33 <k4jcw> And annoying.
20:37:39 <Quartus> I've noticed that.
20:38:44 <slava> kc5tja?
20:38:54 <Quartus> I think it stemmed from my visiting ##forth and asking why they'd started another channel, as it could only subdivide an already small community.
20:39:11 <Quartus> slava, yes
20:40:23 --- quit: madgarden (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
20:42:19 <Anbidian> what is the focus of ##forth?
20:42:23 <Quartus> no clue.
20:42:40 <Anbidian> the forth community is divided.  i'm not sure it's a problem
20:42:49 <Quartus> It apparently has its origins in IRC politics relating to the # and ## prefixes.
20:43:33 <Quartus> I'm sure that's of importance to somebody, but I can't imagine a smaller issue.
20:52:11 <Anbidian> ##forth is empty
20:52:24 <Anbidian> oops i joined ##forth?
20:52:29 <slava> its not empty
20:52:40 <Quartus> . /names says ##forth slava timlarson madwork arke crc 
20:55:16 --- join: madgarden (n=madgarde@London-HSE-ppp3546145.sympatico.ca) joined #forth
21:33:37 --- quit: Quartus_ (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
21:51:01 --- join: I440r__ (n=mark4@65.244.197.34) joined #forth
23:01:37 --- join: alexshendi (n=alexshen@dslb-084-056-183-030.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth
23:02:00 --- part: alexshendi left #forth
23:03:14 --- quit: slava ()
23:21:21 --- quit: madgarden (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/06.10.19