00:00:00 --- log: started forth/09.05.10
00:07:00 --- join: schmx (n=marcus@c83-249-81-1.bredband.comhem.se) joined #forth
00:28:32 <schmx> g'day
00:29:03 --- join: GeDaMo (n=gedamo@212.225.108.65) joined #forth
00:29:16 --- join: chinese (n=yoyo@117.22.133.239) joined #forth
00:34:28 --- quit: yoyofreeman (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
03:24:56 <gogonkt> ...
03:27:48 --- join: WastePotato (n=WastePot@unaffiliated/wastepotato) joined #forth
04:47:34 --- quit: GeDaMo ("Leaving.")
06:44:01 --- join: kar8nga (n=kar8nga@a-61.vc-graz.ac.at) joined #forth
06:54:19 --- join: nighty^ (n=nighty@x122091.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp) joined #forth
07:08:19 --- quit: Al2O3 ("I'm heading out, will be back online soon")
08:47:20 --- part: kspaans left #forth
08:48:45 --- join: GeDaMo (n=gedamo@212.225.108.65) joined #forth
09:01:41 --- quit: kar8nga (Remote closed the connection)
09:21:22 --- log: started forth/09.05.10
09:21:22 --- join: clog (n=nef@bespin.org) joined #forth
09:21:22 --- topic: 'Welcome to #forth. We discuss the Forth programming language and a variety of technical subjects. Introduction and  Helpful Reading: http://forthfreak.net/index.cgi?FnFC | ANS/ISO Forth Standard doc: http://tinyurl.com/nx7dx | Gforth compiler:  http://tinyurl.com/s8uho | http://quartus.net/search | Paste: http://forth.pastebin.ca | http://www.isforth.com'
09:21:22 --- topic: set by I440r on [Fri Feb 13 08:39:24 2009]
09:21:22 --- names: list (clog uiu_ GeDaMo nighty^ WastePotato chinese schmx aguai tathi spec` dkcl madgarden gogonkt proteusguy impomatic X-Scale mathrick @I440r malyn TreyB maht warpzero Deformati KipIngram gnomon ENKI-][ segher kleinjt pippin nighty__ tarbo)
10:32:14 <schmx> ???
10:35:50 --- quit: schmx ("leaving")
10:52:50 --- quit: nighty^ (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
11:23:47 <WastePotato> ?
11:24:54 --- join: Deformative (n=joe@c-71-238-45-45.hsd1.mi.comcast.net) joined #forth
11:33:26 --- quit: WastePotato ()
11:37:03 --- quit: Deformati (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
12:48:11 --- join: benny99 (n=benny@p5486B6DA.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth
12:52:29 --- join: kar8nga (n=kar8nga@e-82.vc-graz.ac.at) joined #forth
12:52:36 <benny99> http://forth.pastebin.ca/1418540 <- any ideas :( ?
12:55:54 <GeDaMo> : both ' tuck execute >r execute r> ;
12:58:33 <GeDaMo> benny99: Wait ... what are you asking?
13:00:01 <benny99> GeDaMo, sorry, I tried to 'test' it -- I want to invoke 'test' and '<2> 25 36' as output
13:00:20 <benny99> GeDaMo, tuck appears to be a good idea anyway :)
13:01:09 <GeDaMo> I think you need to use create ... does> rather than immediate for 'both'
13:03:10 <benny99> I tried to use it - but ... guess there's no 'but', thought for some reason that I wasn't able to use it here :[
13:03:37 <benny99> ah
13:04:41 <benny99> if I'd use create, would 'both' not require some kind of 'name' ?
13:04:58 <GeDaMo> Yeah, I'm just experimenting with it at the moment
13:06:20 <benny99> GeDaMo, thanks - I'm just playing around myself, so if it's too much effort, there's no need to waste your time :)
13:06:31 <GeDaMo> No problem :P
13:12:40 <GeDaMo> : both: create ' , does> @ tuck execute >r execute r> ; both: simple square
13:13:45 <GeDaMo> benny99: 
13:14:02 <benny99> GeDaMo, thanks :)
13:15:08 <benny99> GeDaMo, oh, I didn't mean to use the return stack btw. :-[ - or is that the smarter way ?
13:15:30 <GeDaMo> Is there some particular reason to not use it?
13:15:59 <benny99> no
13:16:40 <GeDaMo> It can help reduce some of the stack juggling
13:17:42 <benny99> 'interpreting a compile-only word' on 'both: simple square >>>;<<<' -- hm
13:17:58 <benny99> GeDaMo, so it's probably a smarter definition :p
13:18:15 <GeDaMo> You don't need a ; on the end of that
13:18:39 <benny99> ah, of course :-[
13:19:52 <GeDaMo> I useually put a : on the end of words which read from the input stream, since this reads two I should have called it 'both::'  :P
13:23:12 <benny99> GeDaMo, well, if you think of it as a "yes/no-definition" it remains correct :p
13:24:43 <GeDaMo> Yeah, true, it's only defining one word
13:29:22 <benny99> GeDaMo, though it's still not possible to use 'both' 'anonymously' or is it :[ ?
13:30:33 <GeDaMo> In what way?
13:31:36 <GeDaMo> You could define : both ( a b xt -- a' b' ) tuck execute >r execute r> ;
13:31:36 <benny99> : test 5 6 both square ;
13:32:23 <benny99> GeDaMo, yeah, but 'data' both 'what' just looks better for me :[
13:32:45 <GeDaMo> It's not very Forth-like though :P
13:33:03 <benny99> I'm just toying around, trying to find out whether that is possible
13:33:17 <benny99> GeDaMo, but it saves a tick everytime I use it :p
13:35:21 <benny99> and I still wonder why my original definition did not work -- both uses square in simple immediately and test uses simple immediately, don't they ?
13:37:47 <GeDaMo> Did it fail during the definition of simple?
13:37:59 <benny99> '2 3 both square .s 2drop' --> '<2> 4 9' ... but '2 3 simple' --> '<2> 2 3'
13:38:09 <benny99> GeDaMo, no
13:38:14 <benny99> (using gforth btw.)
13:38:18 <GeDaMo> Me too
13:39:23 <GeDaMo> Think about what happens when you define simple in your original code
13:39:52 <GeDaMo> 'both' executes in the middle of defining it
13:40:08 <benny99> yeah
13:40:15 <GeDaMo> it parses square out of the input strem then runs it on what is on top of the stack at that time
13:40:24 <benny99> so geforth should give me some warning/error because the stack is empty
13:40:45 <GeDaMo> It probably isn't empty - there will be values related to the compilation
13:41:27 <benny99> ah
13:44:04 <GeDaMo> : [both] ' postpone literal ['] both compile, ; immediate 
13:44:33 <GeDaMo> benny99: 
13:48:52 <benny99> GeDaMo, hm, not here, though I'm not using the return stack, but it should work anyway hm ?
13:49:35 <GeDaMo> ?
13:50:08 <GeDaMo> The 'both' in that is my definition : both ( a b xt -- a' b' ) tuck execute >r execute r> ;
13:52:09 <benny99> mine is ': both ' tuck execute -rot execute swap ;'  --- but ' will still read from the input stream hm ?
13:52:16 <GeDaMo> http://forth.pastebin.ca/1418609
13:53:10 <benny99> (tick tuck ... maybe it's missing 'tack' for aesthetics ?)
13:56:26 <benny99> http://forth.pastebin.ca/1418613 <-- found the difference, hmk
13:57:54 <GeDaMo> I think you have an extra tick in there
13:58:38 <benny99> GeDaMo, yeah
13:59:06 --- quit: kar8nga (Remote closed the connection)
13:59:10 <benny99> GeDaMo, but if I remove that extra tick, '2 3 both square' becomes invalid
14:00:00 <GeDaMo> You want to use the same word for interpreting and compiling?
14:00:04 <benny99> GeDaMo, but I should be able to 'end that story' myself :-[
14:00:54 <benny99> GeDaMo, no, not necessarily
14:13:04 <benny99> guess I still don't really comprehend what immediate, postpone,  [ ... ], compile,  -- etc. are doing :/
14:15:02 <GeDaMo> postpone parses the name of an immediate word out of the input stream and compiles it into the current definition
14:16:14 <benny99> that's what I read at http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/gforth/gforth_49.html also -- but  ' postpone literal <-- what ?
14:16:36 <GeDaMo> Normally 'literal' would execute at compile time
14:16:44 <GeDaMo> Because it's an immediate word
14:17:18 <GeDaMo> 'postpone literal' means "don't execute this now"
14:17:27 <benny99> yeah
14:18:07 <GeDaMo> compile, compiles an xt into the current definition
14:18:43 * benny99 looks up literal
14:19:01 <GeDaMo> literal compiles a literal value into the current definition
14:19:56 <GeDaMo> Normally, you would use it like : twenty-five [ 5 5 * ] literal ;
14:20:02 <benny99> ah ... and since ' gives a xt, that is compiled and later invoked ?
14:20:21 <GeDaMo> Using [ and ] like that switches out of and back into compilation mode
14:20:26 <benny99> yep
14:21:00 <GeDaMo> Not invoked, just pushed onto the stack
14:21:06 <benny99> I know what those words are supposed to do I guess, but I don't really know how to use them
14:23:10 <GeDaMo> Understanding interpret, compile and run-time is important
14:23:38 <benny99> GeDaMo, sorry for 'teasing' you :[ - step by step:  1) ' -> get next word from input stream (i.e. square) 2) postpone literal - execute literal later and push ?what? on the stack?
14:23:59 <benny99> GeDaMo, oh dear, interpret and run-time are different :( ?
14:24:04 <GeDaMo> ' gets the xt
14:24:13 <benny99> GeDaMo, yeah, gets the xt
14:24:27 <benny99> but what does postpone literal do then with what ?
14:24:33 <GeDaMo> postpone literal compiles that number so at run-time the xt will be pushed onto the stack
14:25:44 <GeDaMo> Have you looked at the ANS Forth standard?
14:25:46 <benny99> ah ... the xt-number ?
14:25:52 <GeDaMo> Yes
14:26:07 <benny99> GeDaMo, I use the gforth-manual immo
14:26:50 <GeDaMo> The standard specifies when a word has different interpret, compile and run-time behaviours
14:27:34 <benny99> 3) ['] both -> get xt of both 'now' 4) compile, -> compiles that into the word that invokes [both] ?
14:27:55 <GeDaMo> Yes
14:28:25 <GeDaMo> Try typing "see test"
14:29:30 <benny99> ah, of course -- but that would have bothered you less I guess :[ ... thanks
14:29:45 <GeDaMo> :P
14:30:02 <GeDaMo> If you do ' square . 
14:30:04 <benny99> that really helped me a lot :)
14:30:12 <GeDaMo> The number printed should be the same as the one in test
14:30:24 <GeDaMo> Because that's its xt
14:30:27 <benny99> it is :)
14:34:37 * benny99 feels like he just learned a lot
14:35:03 <GeDaMo> It's nice when things seem to fall into place :P
14:35:13 <benny99> oh yeah :)
14:46:18 <GeDaMo> benny99: you can replace "['] both compile," with "[compile] both"
14:47:56 <GeDaMo> Hmmm ... ok, you can't 
14:47:58 <benny99> GeDaMo, looks even better :) - btw. - I renamed your 'both' to 'bothexec' and replaced it by ': both ' bothexec' - now everybody is happy :p
14:48:06 <benny99> GeDaMo, I can ._.
14:48:08 --- join: Al2O3 (n=Al2O3@24.9.43.112) joined #forth
14:48:20 <GeDaMo> I must be doing something wrong then :P
14:48:27 <benny99> sorry, I can't
14:48:30 <benny99> loaded the wrong file
14:49:09 * benny99 just wrote 'loaded' ...
14:52:33 <benny99> compile, -- Append the execution semantics of the definition represented by xt to the execution semantics of the current definition. ---- [compile] -- If name has other than default compilation semantics, append them to the current definition; otherwise append the execution semantics of name. An ambiguous condition exists if name is not found.
14:53:59 <GeDaMo> I think [compile] is just the same as postpone - which is not what we want in this case
14:54:33 <GeDaMo> You'll have to stick with ['] both compile,
14:55:39 <GeDaMo> Or you could do s" both" evaluate
15:00:13 <GeDaMo> D'oh! You can do "postpone both"
15:06:57 <benny99> indeed :)
15:11:31 <GeDaMo> benny99: I'm off to bed
15:11:39 <GeDaMo> Good luck with your exploration :)
15:11:41 <benny99> GeDaMo, me too  :)
15:11:42 <benny99> thanks again !
15:11:49 * benny99 will explore more tomorrow
15:11:55 <GeDaMo> :)
15:12:00 --- quit: GeDaMo ("Leaving.")
15:36:46 --- quit: benny99 ("Leaving")
17:16:39 <tathi> Hmm...missed them.  Well, I'll say it anyway.  [compile] and postpone are not actually the same ... for historical reasons, `[compile] normal-word` is a no-op, whereas `postpone normal-word` is not.
18:02:32 --- join: nighty^ (n=nighty@210.188.173.245) joined #forth
18:03:57 --- join: andrewSC (n=andrew@ipanema.parkpointrit.com) joined #forth
18:04:09 <andrewSC> hi all
18:04:10 <andrewSC> :)
18:12:32 <tathi> hey
18:14:58 <andrewSC> :3
18:15:14 <tathi> how goes it?
18:15:23 <andrewSC> well!
18:15:25 <andrewSC> yourself?
18:17:16 <tathi> not too bad
18:17:25 <tathi> *badly, even
18:17:33 <andrewSC> mhmm
18:27:04 <andrewSC> man i feel like programming
18:27:05 <andrewSC> :)
18:36:07 --- quit: malyn ("Disconnecting from stoned server.")
18:39:17 --- join: malyn (n=malyn@unaffiliated/malyn) joined #forth
19:08:16 --- quit: andrewSC ("Leaving")
19:31:38 --- quit: aguai (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
19:32:08 <warpzero> everybody watching
19:32:11 <warpzero> that don't mean you stoppin
20:00:10 --- quit: Al2O3 ("I'm heading out, will be back online soon")
20:31:01 --- quit: malyn ("Disconnecting from stoned server.")
20:32:53 --- join: malyn (n=malyn@unaffiliated/malyn) joined #forth
21:24:21 --- quit: chinese ("ÔÝÀë")
21:24:25 --- join: chinese (n=yoyo@117.22.133.239) joined #forth
21:27:46 --- quit: chinese (Client Quit)
21:53:23 --- quit: tathi (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
22:38:56 --- quit: dkcl ("leaving")
22:39:08 --- join: dkcl (n=dkcl@unaffiliated/dkcl) joined #forth
23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/09.05.10