00:00:00 --- log: started forth/11.03.27 01:53:09 chemuduguntar: jonesforth is awful. 01:57:18 it's not that bad; it's good for beginners to see developement of an engine 02:03:39 It is even worse than what I think then. 02:03:46 Beginners shouldn't look at internals at all. 02:03:58 --- join: qFox (~C00K13S@5356B263.cm-6-7c.dynamic.ziggo.nl) joined #forth 02:08:49 i found it impossible to gleam how it works at all 02:11:24 ask a question 02:18:02 well, my question would be something like how everything works :) 02:18:22 ok 02:18:36 for e.g. how does 'if' work? 02:18:44 (in jones forth) 02:24:54 That's exactly the question that shouldn't be asked. 02:25:02 It shouldn't matter at all how "if" works. 02:25:36 All you need to know is its effect. 02:25:50 google `Ertl threads' 02:26:10 google, `direct indirect threading' 02:26:32 join and read current and past mails on comp.lang.forth 02:26:57 I don't see how it helps. 02:27:04 too bad 02:27:07 it's all learning. 02:27:25 chemuduguntar look for smarter people than here 02:27:41 You don't really need to know any threaded code internals to understand how "if" works. 02:27:48 he wants to know how 02:27:51 and why. 02:28:10 This is exactly the information newcomer shouldn't know. 02:28:21 but chemuduguntar WANTS to know 02:28:35 yea I want to know the mechanism 02:28:45 then do as i suggest 02:28:45 Then jonesforth is wrong place to look at. 02:29:11 but i feel the x86 assembler, and the rambling in forms of comments is not really of help 02:29:28 then find something else. read what i sugest 02:29:33 SunTzu, reading 'forth dimensions' now 02:29:38 good 02:29:40 Hm. 02:29:51 I don't remember if FD have anything related. 02:30:25 6.1 is helping somewhat 02:30:39 The easiest way is to fetch the source, e.g. for apforth and look at definitions. 02:31:09 It uses classig FIG-Forth-like definitions with nesting checks. 02:31:56 Slightly modified to "modern" (read "as of late 80ies") realities like " ah thats you :) 02:37:44 ASau`, where can i find the outer intepreter? 02:37:48 interpreter* 02:43:38 Outer interpreter for what? 02:45:08 apforth 02:45:55 Why do you need it? 02:47:00 hmm 02:47:03 i am not sure 02:47:05 Yes, exactly. 02:47:30 First of all, it isn't hard to find yourself. 02:47:47 Since apforth is almost bare-bone as of now, it is trivial. 02:48:02 If you're unable to find it, then you don't need it really. 02:48:18 What is the problem you're solving? 02:48:33 well i am trying to implement a forth myself 02:48:44 You haven't learnt how to write in Forth. 02:48:55 Why do you think you're able to implement it? 02:49:49 for the challenge i guess 02:49:50 Just in case it isn't clear to you, Forth isn't "a" RPN calculator like dc(1). 02:51:47 i think all my stabs at implementing forth have amounted to rpn calculators ;/ 02:52:47 You have to learn writing in Forth before implementing it. 02:53:25 hmm... 02:53:42 but if as you say, if one does never worry about it works and only about it's effect 02:53:45 Otherwise you end like those simple-minded programmers who 02:53:45 think that Lisp is just an implementation of single-linked list 02:53:45 processing library. 02:57:15 when i finally understood the meta circular evaluator it was fantastic 02:58:08 if guess, my quest is to uncover the essense of forth 02:58:09 Except that Lisp isn't that meta-circular evaluator from that MIT AI lab memo. 02:58:53 i think i'm a terrible lisp programmer, because i hardly write lisp, but i understand the the evaluator, and have written a pretty functional (pun? :) ) version 02:58:56 If you learnt Scheme, you should remember that lexical scoping wasn't in Lisp for a long time. 02:59:37 i am a bit vague on the history aspect 02:59:42 If you come into Lisp or Scheme community with that archaic evaluator, 02:59:48 you'll be laughed upon. 03:00:29 Dynamic scoping fell out of production use 30 years ago. 03:00:42 ah, i am pretty sure I used the lexical scheme 03:00:54 environment chaining and all 03:00:57 The only reservation being Emacs. 03:03:27 yea 03:03:34 personally i avoid common lisp 03:04:00 and stick with scheme, because it's much more uniform and comprehensible 03:04:16 It isn't more uniform. 03:04:18 probably not as practical, given clisp has more libraries etc. 03:04:41 referring to the mess of namespaces 03:05:20 What you call "more uniform" is this. 03:06:05 You threw many complex useful features out, then you're 03:06:05 trying to recreate them in half-functioning form. 03:07:03 And get instead of one object system, several half-functioning ones. 03:07:19 Same for exception handling, name space handling and so on. 03:08:10 i am pretty sure guile does all those things nicely 03:08:23 maybe even mit-scheme 03:08:35 What happens if I need some free Scheme system? 03:09:05 free as in beer ? :) 03:09:20 Free as in free. 03:09:37 Without strings attached. 03:09:55 I don't remember if MIT Scheme works on my target operating system. 03:09:57 umm... i guess you have to look for public domain implementations 03:10:38 And Chicken hardly follows Guile library scheme. 03:10:57 yea ... all schemes basically are useless at talking to each other 03:11:12 what if i wanted a 'free' processor? 03:11:30 Are there any? 03:11:37 maybe thtat's too far down, but you get the point 03:11:42 OTOH, they may exist. 03:11:51 there's probably some fpga cores you can use 03:11:55 I don't see how it applies here. 03:12:09 Free CPU doesn't save costs. 03:13:46 linux is 'free' 03:13:50 but has many strings 03:13:51 No, it isn't. 03:13:56 gpl etc. 03:14:05 These strings cause high costs. 03:14:11 GPL isn't free. 03:14:32 yes it is. 03:14:36 No, it isn't. 03:14:59 there are no "string attached" to Linux, or any other GPL licensed program, you can do whatever you want. 03:15:17 There're a whole 10 KB of GPL strings attached. 03:15:20 that's like if you buy a cpu, you are paying for the manufacturing cost, but the IP itself isn't free (and will never be) 03:15:46 chemuduguntar: What do you mean with IP? 03:15:51 intellectual property 03:16:01 but that doesn't stop anyone using it 03:16:04 chemuduguntar: so what do you mean? the term is diluted, and has no meaning basically 03:16:14 chemuduguntar: do you mean copyright? patent law? trademark? 03:17:12 ams, i mean the design of the chip itself, the architecture, optimizations etc. 03:17:25 ASau`: those strings simply protect _you_ 03:17:32 ASau`: much like the constitution 03:17:36 ams: those strings simply don't protect me. 03:17:46 chemuduguntar: so what do you mean? copyright? or patent law? 03:18:05 ASau`: they see that you can do what you wish with the program, so yes, that is exactly what they do. 03:18:10 ams, patent laws perhaps would fit here 03:18:21 chemuduguntar: patent law only defines manufacturing processes. 03:18:42 since if something was free, you have no right to claim it as your own, but you can ofcourse change it and use it in your own creation 03:18:43 chemuduguntar: so _how_ to make the chip, if it is made you could in theory do a bunch of scans on it and reproduce it using different means. 03:19:06 ams: they force me not to distribute my program, if I use it. 03:19:09 (or that is the idea of patent law anyway :-) 03:19:21 ASau`: simply not true, you are not forced to distribute anything. 03:19:22 ams: and this is unacceptable, if I want to reuse some common parts. 03:19:32 ASau`: again, you are not forced to distribute. 03:20:00 the GPL is open to interpretation :P 03:20:05 ams: it's like "you may eat it, but they you become my slave." 03:20:12 ASau`: again, you are not forced to distribute. 03:20:17 chemuduguntar: not really. 03:20:21 ams: yes, I am. 03:20:26 ASau`: cite line and verse. 03:20:34 Software is useless without distribution. 03:21:02 ASau`: cite line and verse. 03:21:26 ams: Software is useless without distribution. 03:21:46 ASau`: i do not see anything like that in the GPL 03:21:47 This part is essentially hard to understand to GPL fanatics. 03:22:12 ASau`: so where in the GPL does it state that you _MUST_ distribute the software? 03:22:42 ams: it says that if I distribute software, I _MUST_ distribute the source. 03:22:55 ams: this is ESSENTIALLY takes my rights away. 03:23:03 Thus it is NOT free. 03:23:03 ASau`: correct, so that everyone gets the same rights as you. 03:23:16 ASau`: but you are claiming that you are forced to distribute, where does it state that? 03:23:33 Yes, software is useless if one doesn't distribute it. 03:23:41 ASau`: but you are claiming that you are forced to distribute, where does it state that? 03:24:02 GPL doesn't state it, because it lies. 03:24:08 lol 03:24:11 Software is useless if noone distributes it. 03:24:39 ASau`, what if you were making a website 03:24:42 and used linux 03:24:51 and php or what ever the fad is 03:24:56 you aren't distributing it 03:25:03 yet it is useful 03:25:08 chemuduguntar: and how would that be different, if I used NT and ASP? 03:25:28 well, no different from the users perspective 03:25:34 That's the point. 03:25:39 ASau`: maybe so, the GPL sees that everyone gets the source. programs without source are useless. 03:25:53 ASau`: again, where does the GPL lie? 03:26:03 you like to claim obsurd things, it is quite boring. 03:26:38 chemuduguntar: above you see how GPL fanatics distort reality. :) 03:27:01 chemuduguntar: many users use NT and ASP without source, and they believe they can't. 03:27:04 wee... how am i distorting reality? 03:27:17 Sure. 03:27:20 )i am assuming you are the one calling me names) 03:27:21 they believe they can't what? 03:27:26 You claim things are not what they are. 03:28:19 which things are not in the GPL that I have claimed? 03:28:29 (meta claims ? :P ) 03:28:43 chemuduguntar: "programs without source are useless" (ams) - here you see why GPL fanatics are schizophrenical idiots. 03:29:16 ASau`: that is not a claim in the gpl, that is a claim i have made, which you agreed too. 03:29:30 12:27 Yes, software is useless if one doesn't distribute it. 03:29:38 so we agree, you are a "GPL fanatic" 03:29:52 software is source code, not a binary blob 03:30:02 ams: I have never told that "software" is equivalent to its source form. 03:30:07 and now... ASau` implodes from self contradiction. 03:30:10 Software is software. 03:30:54 in either case, again, where does the GPL claim any lies, or where I have claimed any lies? 03:31:16 Just above you have claimed lies. 03:31:20 software is source code, not a binary blob 03:31:23 This is lie. 03:31:28 In particular. 03:31:30 ASau`: says who? 03:31:37 but you called me a liar before that. 03:31:43 Everyone except GPL fanatics. 03:31:52 nor do i see how claiming an opinion is a lie. 03:31:58 software has no strict definition 03:32:14 Many things have no strict definition. 03:32:18 you could just not use any gpl software 03:32:30 nothing stopping you there 03:32:33 It doesn't stop people from using common terms. 03:32:49 clearly you are, since you are calling me a liar when i have not said anything untrue. 03:33:08 This very statement is lie. 03:33:14 and you are calling me a fanatic, but i could say the same thing about your stubborn and incorrect intepretations of the GPL, and other things 03:33:21 You have lied above about software being only its source form. 03:33:32 ASau`: how is that a lie? 03:33:55 Because MS Windows is software even in its object form. 03:33:56 ASau`, i think software has many forms 03:34:06 ASau`: i disagree. 03:34:17 software is something you can study, and understand and see what it does. 03:34:22 i cannot do this with microsoft windows 03:34:27 it is a binary program 03:34:34 source code is just a more verbose expression of the program 03:34:39 ams: people study binary code without major problems. 03:34:53 ASau`: sure, and i have done so, i still do not think it is software. 03:35:01 Only GPL fanatics deny common definition for software. 03:35:12 ASau`: i have studied the flickering lights on a scope to understand what is going on 03:35:12 Right :D 03:35:19 common? 03:35:23 which one is that? 03:35:25 "Software is what is GPLed, otherwise it isn't software." :D 03:35:39 i never said that, or implied it 03:36:32 richard stallman will say it 03:36:41 no, he won't. 03:36:44 but then again he's a bit loony 03:36:51 not raelly, do you know him? 03:36:52 cause i do. 03:37:06 i don't know him personally, no 03:37:15 well i do. 03:37:21 and he wouldn't say that, or even imply it. 03:37:41 the FSF has even recommended in using the modified 3-clause BSD license for some projects 03:37:57 e.g. theora 03:38:41 we also have other licenses than the GPL, like the Affero license and the Lesser GPL, so a claim like "If it is not GPL it is not software" is absurd. 03:39:12 i won't say lie, since i think ASau` is simply confused. 03:39:50 You started the whole thing from the lie: 03:39:52 GPL isn't free. 03:39:52 yes it is. 03:40:10 And you did the very thing many times. 03:40:17 this isn't a lie, you really should look up the meaning of the word. 03:40:23 i guess we started with differences to what we consider the word free to man 03:40:23 the GPL is a free license. 03:40:25 mean* 03:40:25 It is the lie. 03:40:52 there is a common definition in the computer world, one that we wrote some almost 30 years ago. 03:40:54 GPL may be free licence, but the software doesn't become free just because of it. 03:41:06 --- join: dvdk (~dvdkhlng@g226059016.adsl.alicedsl.de) joined #forth 03:41:12 It is common definition for GPL part of the world. 03:41:20 chemuduguntar: do you know of another definition for free software that has been in use this long? 03:41:24 But the world doesn't consist only of GPL fanatics. 03:41:46 anybody around here knows how to create a windows turn-key app using bigforth? 03:41:46 ASau`: it is a common definition in the software world. 03:41:49 ams, 'this long'? ... 03:41:50 just tried and ran into some problems. 03:42:31 ASau`: what is your feeling towards open source software? 03:42:35 i guess 'free' in the context of GPL isn't 'free' in the libertarian sens of the word 03:42:40 sense* 03:42:52 monetarily it is free yes 03:43:03 free of obligations, no 03:43:08 chemuduguntar: how is it not free in the sense of a libertarian? 03:43:09 chemuduguntar: I don't see how it is free monetarily. 03:43:19 chemuduguntar: are you practicing lawyer? 03:43:27 ASau`: you can charge any number of coins for distributing a GPL program. 03:43:40 dvdk: no clue 03:43:53 ASau`, well, if you ignore the cost of owning a computer and paying your ISP, then being able to download it and compile it ... is free 03:44:05 dvdk: you can assume that ams has no clue in future. 03:44:21 dvdk: bigforth isn't particularly widespread. 03:44:23 oh, well this feels like a real-time version of comp.lang.forth 03:44:34 dvdk: and I'm not sure BP supports it well enough. 03:44:38 chemuduguntar: libertarians tend to like the concept of "your freedom ends at my nose", which is very much like the GPL 03:44:48 ASau`: yeah, the mailinglist logs about 3 mails/year :/ 03:45:07 dvdk: you can assume that ASau` doesn't have a clue either on this :-) 03:45:10 still it's the fastest system (even faster than gforth-64bit for my application) 03:45:27 dvdk: If you're working on NT, SP-Forth is better supported. 03:45:38 dvdk: at least there're commit messages on the page. 03:45:46 ams, i guess the worry is whether one will be coerced into whatever the FSF deems 'ethical' 03:45:54 actually i don't even have a windows around. using wine to 'cross-compile' and test an application for windows. 03:46:00 chemuduguntar: that can't happen. 03:46:13 for e.g. kernel modules are clearly a gray area 03:46:13 * dvdk is googeling for SP-Forth 03:46:18 chemuduguntar: the GPL is a legal document, it has no bearing on what the FSF says or claims. 03:46:20 yet the GPL is clear about it 03:46:25 dvdk: I used WINE to build SP-Forth in past, I don't think it changed. 03:46:28 chemuduguntar: no it isn't. 03:46:38 chemuduguntar: Linux has an expection to kernel modules 03:46:45 if i remeber. 03:47:13 i use openbsd that has been stripped of all non-free software (so much for GPL fanatic :-) 03:47:43 including all closed source rom's? 03:47:43 ASau`: can SP-Forth build stand-alone apps? 03:47:51 chemuduguntar: correct. 03:48:02 * dvdk is running 'wine spf4-20-setup.exe' 03:48:07 dvdk: Sure, it is the only practical open-source Forth. 03:48:17 dvdk: see acftp, acweb. 03:48:25 ASau`: so do you like open source software? 03:48:43 ams: no. 03:49:10 chemuduguntar: anyway, the FSF can't do much, only the copyright holder can, and a judge. 03:49:31 chemuduguntar: the fsf can't even relicense the GNU system under some non-free software license.... 03:50:15 the existing versions anyway right? 03:50:35 chemuduguntar: any future version, you can't retroactivley pull back a license. 03:50:54 ams: in which country? 03:51:13 wow, so product xyz for versions 1 through infinity have to stick to the same license? 03:51:30 chemuduguntar: basically, it is lies. 03:51:30 chemuduguntar: no 03:51:34 you misunderstood me 03:51:35 (0 through infinity :P ) 03:51:37 chemuduguntar: you can pull licence. 03:51:44 chemuduguntar: xyz version 1 will always stay at license FOO 03:51:52 chemuduguntar: version 2 can be liecnsed under another license. 03:51:56 ams, aha! 03:52:09 ASau`: you can pull a license if some things in the license are fullfilled. 03:52:10 chemuduguntar: while it may cause technical difficulties, it is possible. 03:52:16 you cannot retroactivley _CHANGE_ a license. 03:52:45 i cannot say in 10 years that xyz version 1 was really licensed under BAR license instead of the FOO license. 03:53:45 pulling a license, and retroactivley changing it are two entierly differnet things 03:53:58 pulling a license you can do when someone violates it, that is how copyright law works. 03:54:04 ams, so i am imagning an evil scenario, where newer version of product xyz is re licensed is changed to something atrocious, older version are still usable, however, all of xyz's dependencies have been changed and one requires a newer xyz to use it 03:54:22 chemuduguntar: yes, that would be a valid scenario. 03:54:34 You can say that on 1. April all FSF copyright is transferred to Oracle and licensed by some evil terms. 03:54:54 ASau`: can't happen. 03:55:13 ASau`: there is a contract between each and every copyright assigner with the fsf. 03:55:15 ams: you mix "can't" in too many meanings. 03:55:21 ams: it is technically possible. 03:55:29 ASau`: there are also terms in the GPL that make it impossible for the FSF to be allowed to do this. 03:55:32 ASau`: simply not true. 03:55:32 ya as i understand if you can't change the current, or past 03:55:53 ams: in which country? 03:56:00 ASau`: all countries. 03:56:06 ams: not here. 03:56:15 ASau`: in russia? same story there. 03:56:18 ams: it is provided by law here. 03:56:46 ams: or was provided two years ago at least. 03:56:48 chemuduguntar: in the case with GPL, the FSF can't change the license to a non-free one. 03:57:19 chemuduguntar: it has to always be in "similar in spirit", which precludes any license that is not a copyleft license, or a free software license. 03:57:25 Plus, it doesn't stop the US law from adopting similar changes. 03:57:42 what laws? 03:57:55 Copyright laws. 03:58:06 ams, i suspect the way the things are going - nothing like the evil scenario i mentioned won't happen 03:58:16 it may make a great movie plot perhaps :P 03:58:23 chemuduguntar: it _cannot_ happen. 03:58:45 chemuduguntar: it is simply impossible, the license explicitly prohibits it, and a court has to read the license. 03:58:46 right...if the 'similar spirit' can be interpreted correctly 03:59:19 chemuduguntar: it can, the scenario you showed is the extreme one 03:59:20 oops negate my first assertion 03:59:25 chemuduguntar: in that case, it can easily be interpreted. 03:59:40 chemuduguntar: it is just a matter of "copyleft" and "free software" 03:59:42 ams, i suspect the way the things are going - nothing like the evil scenario i mentioned won't happen = ams, i suspect the way the things are going - nothing like the evil scenario i mentioned _WILL_ happen 04:00:02 chemuduguntar: still, it _cannot_ happen. 04:00:43 what _can_ happen though is if one decides on peculiar interpretations of a smallish side case 04:01:32 Ha-ha. 04:01:59 There's opinion, that GPL software costs even more then closed one here. 04:02:01 like for example, how to handle a new technology that prohibits running the program, or whateve. 04:02:11 If you happen to raise it in court. 04:02:20 somehow i doubt that. 04:02:28 but good if it is so. 04:02:38 the GPL is a copyright license like any other license. 04:03:43 maybe the "pirates" will learn to obey licenses. 04:06:18 nope, now to clean house. 04:09:28 to dream of pirates 04:10:39 i hate the word by the way... 04:10:48 pirates is robbery on the high seas. 04:47:47 kitchen partially done 04:47:52 coffee time. 06:27:33 --- quit: ygrek (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 06:42:34 --- join: ygrek (debian-tor@gateway/tor-sasl/ygrek) joined #forth 06:52:22 --- join: nighty__ (~nighty@tin51-1-82-226-147-104.fbx.proxad.net) joined #forth 06:52:22 --- quit: schmrkc (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 06:53:16 --- quit: nighty^ (Read error: No route to host) 07:04:03 --- join: hsuh (~hsuh@a79-168-11-11.cpe.netcabo.pt) joined #forth 07:06:25 --- join: hsuh_ (~hsuh@a79-168-11-11.cpe.netcabo.pt) joined #forth 07:06:25 --- quit: hsuh (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 07:06:27 --- nick: hsuh_ -> hsuh 07:25:01 --- quit: gogonkt (Read error: Operation timed out) 07:28:34 --- join: gogonkt (~gogonkt@2001:c08:3700:ffff::4:86c4) joined #forth 07:40:10 --- join: hsuh_ (~hsuh@a79-168-11-11.cpe.netcabo.pt) joined #forth 07:40:10 --- quit: hsuh (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 07:40:12 --- nick: hsuh_ -> hsuh 08:00:16 --- quit: dvdk (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) 08:05:43 it is fucking snowing.. 08:05:56 where? 08:06:04 send me a gallon 08:11:20 SunTzu: gothenburg, sweden 08:11:58 kool 08:12:23 did you goto the .nl music fest on the ice with ice-instruments? 08:12:37 the what what what? 08:12:40 heh 08:12:58 some folks up there made music tools with ice and then held a concert 08:13:02 a few nights ago 08:16:11 ok, no... 08:16:17 doubt it would be my kind of music 08:23:45 --- quit: hsuh (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 08:24:01 --- join: hsuh (~hsuh@a79-168-11-11.cpe.netcabo.pt) joined #forth 08:45:02 --- part: hsuh left #forth 08:48:26 --- join: MayDaniel (~MayDaniel@unaffiliated/maydaniel) joined #forth 09:32:44 --- quit: MayDaniel (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 11:05:01 --- join: TreyB (~Adium@adsl-99-165-169-124.dsl.hstntx.sbcglobal.net) joined #forth 11:17:46 --- quit: TreyB (Quit: Leaving.) 11:38:57 --- quit: nighty__ (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 11:55:30 --- join: nighty^ (~nighty@tin51-1-82-226-147-104.fbx.proxad.net) joined #forth 11:56:35 --- join: TreyB (~Adium@adsl-99-165-169-124.dsl.hstntx.sbcglobal.net) joined #forth 12:01:01 --- quit: TreyB (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 12:06:56 --- join: TreyB (~Adium@adsl-99-165-169-124.dsl.hstntx.sbcglobal.net) joined #forth 12:12:27 --- join: foocraft (~dsc@89.211.195.128) joined #forth 12:26:32 --- quit: chemuduguntar (Remote host closed the connection) 12:32:17 --- join: impomatic (~chatzilla@87.115.118.174) joined #forth 12:32:21 Hi :-) 12:32:27 Tathi: thanks for the message 12:58:53 --- join: MayDaniel (~MayDaniel@unaffiliated/maydaniel) joined #forth 13:15:05 --- quit: tathi (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 13:36:43 --- quit: MayDaniel (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 13:36:48 --- quit: foocraft (Quit: Leaving) 13:41:48 --- join: nighty__ (~nighty@tin51-1-82-226-147-104.fbx.proxad.net) joined #forth 13:52:25 --- quit: qFox (Quit: Time for cookies!) 13:54:26 --- join: chemuduguntar (~ravic@smtp.touchcut.com) joined #forth 14:00:47 --- quit: ygrek (Remote host closed the connection) 14:19:43 --- quit: Fox78 (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 14:32:58 --- join: Fox78 (~fox@123.118.148.184) joined #forth 14:56:32 --- join: tathi (~josh@dsl-216-227-95-5.fairpoint.net) joined #forth 15:02:25 --- quit: chemuduguntar (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 15:08:01 --- quit: nighty__ (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 15:34:22 --- quit: impomatic (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.86.1 [Firefox 3.5.18/20110319140258]) 15:57:52 --- join: roarde (~roarde@pdpc/supporter/active/roarde) joined #forth 17:20:20 --- quit: gogonkt (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) 17:39:09 --- join: Al2O3 (~Al2O3@c-67-190-8-92.hsd1.co.comcast.net) joined #forth 18:34:19 --- quit: Al2O3 (Quit: Al2O3) 20:28:48 --- quit: Snoopy_1611 () 20:31:07 --- join: Snoopy_1611 (Snoopy_161@dslb-088-069-137-249.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 20:47:12 --- quit: roarde (Quit: Leaving) 22:07:34 --- join: gogonkt (~gogonkt@2001:c08:3700:ffff::33e7) joined #forth 23:02:42 --- quit: KipIngram (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) 23:03:17 --- join: KipIngram (~kip@85.17.255.186) joined #forth 23:03:43 --- nick: KipIngram -> Guest13846 23:19:00 --- quit: gogonkt (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 23:19:51 --- join: gogonkt (~gogonkt@2001:c08:3700:ffff::4445) joined #forth 23:45:01 --- quit: gogonkt (Read error: Operation timed out) 23:53:16 --- join: gogonkt (~gogonkt@2001:c08:3700:ffff::4c45) joined #forth 23:56:04 --- quit: Monevii (Remote host closed the connection) 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/11.03.27