00:00:00 --- log: started forth/13.08.26 00:02:09 --- quit: Backer (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) 00:07:05 --- join: true-grue (~quassel@95-24-206-71.broadband.corbina.ru) joined #forth 00:11:48 --- join: Backer (~backer@user-387h39d.cable.mindspring.com) joined #forth 00:18:56 --- join: nighty-_ (~nighty@static-68-179-124-161.ptr.terago.net) joined #forth 00:19:40 --- quit: nighty- (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 02:30:48 --- quit: kludge` (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 02:33:02 --- join: dys (~user@2a01:1e8:e100:8296:21a:4dff:fe4e:273a) joined #forth 02:36:52 --- join: kludge` (~comet@unaffiliated/espiral) joined #forth 03:01:24 --- join: epicmonkey (~epicmonke@host-224-58.dataart.net) joined #forth 03:15:54 --- quit: Eth|cal (Read error: Connection timed out) 03:17:42 --- join: Eth|cal (~sam@ppp59-167-172-238.static.internode.on.net) joined #forth 03:41:34 --- quit: Eth|cal (Read error: Connection timed out) 03:42:12 --- join: Eth|cal (~sam@ppp59-167-172-238.static.internode.on.net) joined #forth 03:59:24 --- quit: Nisstyre (Quit: Leaving) 04:23:11 --- join: RodgerTheGreat (~rodger@24-247-42-83.dhcp.mrqt.mi.charter.com) joined #forth 04:44:23 --- join: ASau` (~user@p4FF9605A.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) joined #forth 04:47:24 --- quit: ASau (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 05:01:54 --- join: nighty^ (~nighty@lns-bzn-49f-62-147-170-46.adsl.proxad.net) joined #forth 05:23:38 --- quit: Bahman (Quit: Leaving.) 06:45:20 --- join: mark4_ (~mark4@cpe-192-136-213-83.tx.res.rr.com) joined #forth 06:49:04 --- quit: epicmonkey (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 08:33:06 --- join: Tod-Work (~thansmann@50-202-143-210-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net) joined #forth 08:45:52 --- quit: mark4_ (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 08:59:13 --- nick: ASau` -> ASau 10:05:54 --- quit: c00kiemon5ter (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 10:07:11 --- join: c00kiemon5ter (~c00kiemon@foss-aueb/coder/c00kiemon5ter) joined #forth 10:58:14 --- join: Tod-Autojoined2 (~Tod@50-198-177-185-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net) joined #forth 11:04:47 --- join: epicmonkey (~epicmonke@188.134.41.114) joined #forth 11:05:11 --- quit: Tod-Autojoined (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 11:05:12 --- quit: cataska (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 12:12:13 --- join: Deformative (~Deformati@d-111-214.eecs.umich.edu) joined #forth 13:34:19 --- quit: true-grue (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 13:56:39 --- quit: goingretro (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 14:14:47 --- quit: nighty-_ (Remote host closed the connection) 14:19:54 --- join: Nisstyre (~yours@oftn/member/Nisstyre) joined #forth 14:22:06 --- join: mark4_ (~mark4@cpe-192-136-213-83.tx.res.rr.com) joined #forth 14:27:01 --- quit: mark4_ (Quit: brb) 14:49:32 --- join: mark4_ (~mark4@cpe-192-136-213-83.tx.res.rr.com) joined #forth 15:01:12 --- join: nighty- (~nighty@static-68-179-124-161.ptr.terago.net) joined #forth 15:13:54 --- join: itsy (~digital_w@200.79.125.91.dyn.plus.net) joined #forth 15:14:42 --- quit: Tod-Work (Quit: Leaving) 17:14:03 --- quit: nighty^ (Remote host closed the connection) 17:24:38 --- quit: itsy (Quit: itsy) 20:04:05 --- quit: karswell (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 20:13:17 --- quit: RodgerTheGreat (Quit: RodgerTheGreat) 20:22:04 --- quit: Eth|cal (Read error: Connection timed out) 20:22:35 --- join: Eth|cal (~sam@ppp59-167-172-238.static.internode.on.net) joined #forth 20:36:33 --- join: mrout (~user@unaffiliated/mrout) joined #forth 20:36:36 aha 20:36:52 so you know how forth has a stack. you could totally use a queue instead. 20:37:48 er, what 20:38:28 well you know how forth has a stack 20:38:40 so you do 1 2 + . and it prints 5, because it's all reverse polish notation and shit 20:38:40 yes, you said that already 20:38:45 you could totally use a queue instead. 20:38:56 I think you should look at this again 20:39:02 ? 20:39:04 it very much has to behave as a stack 20:39:11 well for it to be forth it has to be a stack 20:39:13 but in general, na 20:40:17 well I lack sufficient imagination to understand what that "general" case would look like or how it would be remotely forth-like 20:40:23 perhaps you could give an elaborated example ? 20:40:43 okay, so say you want to compute (1 + 2) - (3 + 4) 20:40:53 in forth you'd write 1 2 + 3 4 + - 20:41:14 if it was queue based, you'd write 4 3 2 1 + + - 20:41:47 I've got a beautiful infographic to explain it better 20:41:55 http://i.imgur.com/F1IMP3s.png 20:42:21 you're right, that's quite beautiful 20:42:31 unfortunately it doesn't quite make up for my lack of imagination :( 20:42:43 haha 20:42:45 how does your language, shall we call it Q, know how to use the tokens you gave 20:42:50 4 3 2 1 + + - 20:43:05 well it sees a 4, and enqueues the number 4 20:43:11 etc. with the rest of the numbers 20:43:25 oh I see 20:43:38 you really need a deque, or rather two 20:43:40 a + does something like this: ( b a [rest of the queue] -- [rest of the queue] a+b) 20:44:39 so the queue would look like this: (4), (3 4), (2 3 4), (1 2 3 4), (7 1 2), (3 7), (-4) 20:45:04 yes I see what you mean now 20:45:08 interesting thought 20:45:16 forgive my unbelief 20:45:56 One thing that's really puzzling me is why the syntax tree -> queue notation is what it is 20:46:50 I think however that the Q model is much more limited than the stack model 20:47:00 because you have to know ahead of time how big your queue is going to be 20:47:07 rather, I mean : 20:47:21 a word's behaviour is dependent on the depth of the queue 20:47:29 so it introduces a very heavy state constraint 20:47:45 this adds a bunch of complexity, no? 20:47:55 if you have ten things in the queue when you call a word, how are you going to use the result of that word ? 20:48:14 I don't think for non-trivial cases it is even remotely programmable, honestly 20:48:34 yeah 20:48:41 it'd be an esoteric language, definitely. 20:51:09 here's an example of the weirdness of the syntaxtree to queuing http://i.imgur.com/INevznF.png 20:52:03 it's just breadth-first, right 20:52:08 not that that explains why 20:52:13 it is breadth-first. 20:52:14 reversed 20:52:29 a mere convention ;) 20:52:30 It sort of makes sense once you've stared at it enough 20:53:29 maybe this would help as well 20:53:29 http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v18n1/v18n1-MAPS_24.pdf 20:54:00 I can't help but read that as LSD 20:54:12 that is how you should read it 20:54:16 since it is LSD 20:55:16 I'm sorry, you probably thought I was being actually helpful :( 20:55:25 hahaha 20:55:28 not again shall you make that mistake ! 21:17:50 --- part: dessos left #forth 21:19:56 --- join: cataska (~cataska@210.64.6.233) joined #forth 21:25:09 --- join: Bahman (~Bahman@2.146.82.218) joined #forth 22:05:52 --- quit: tangentstorm (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 22:21:35 --- join: tangentstorm (~michal@108-218-151-22.lightspeed.rcsntx.sbcglobal.net) joined #forth 22:35:42 --- quit: Eth|cal (Read error: Connection timed out) 22:36:17 --- join: Eth|cal (~sam@ppp59-167-172-238.static.internode.on.net) joined #forth 22:51:12 --- quit: Eth|cal (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 23:25:13 --- join: Eth|cal (~sam@ppp59-167-172-238.static.internode.on.net) joined #forth 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/13.08.26