00:00:00 --- log: started forth/15.01.06 00:01:09 --- quit: samrat (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.) 00:11:19 --- quit: Bahman (Quit: Will be back in an hour...) 00:16:47 --- join: samrat (~samrat@61.12.96.226) joined #forth 00:45:52 --- join: Bahman (~Bahman@84.241.8.144) joined #forth 00:46:12 --- quit: ravi_ (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 01:07:20 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@c-98-210-219-91.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #forth 01:11:57 --- quit: mnemnion (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) 01:20:57 --- join: true-grue (~grue@95-27-142-71.broadband.corbina.ru) joined #forth 01:25:17 --- quit: proteusguy (Remote host closed the connection) 01:29:08 --- join: Savoyard (~Savoyard@unaffiliated/savoyard) joined #forth 01:29:45 --- join: arquebus (~shintaro@c-76-103-213-5.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #forth 01:33:27 --- quit: Savoyard (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 01:41:57 --- quit: arquebus (Quit: Konversation terminated!) 01:42:18 --- join: proteusguy (~proteusgu@ppp-110-168-229-42.revip5.asianet.co.th) joined #forth 01:42:18 --- mode: ChanServ set +v proteusguy 01:43:06 --- quit: samrat (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.) 01:44:36 --- join: samrat (~samrat@61.12.96.226) joined #forth 02:04:54 --- quit: proteusguy (Remote host closed the connection) 02:05:23 --- join: nighty^ (~nighty@hokuriku.rural-networks.com) joined #forth 02:32:59 --- quit: samrat (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.) 02:35:18 --- join: samrat (~samrat@61.12.96.226) joined #forth 02:38:23 --- join: proteusguy (~proteusgu@ppp-110-168-198-139.revip5.asianet.co.th) joined #forth 02:38:23 --- mode: ChanServ set +v proteusguy 02:56:19 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@c-98-210-219-91.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #forth 03:00:42 --- quit: mnemnion (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) 03:05:48 --- join: Savoyard (~Savoyard@unaffiliated/savoyard) joined #forth 03:10:17 --- quit: Savoyard (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) 03:19:00 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@c-98-210-219-91.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #forth 03:23:17 --- quit: mnemnion (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 03:31:38 --- quit: proteusguy (Remote host closed the connection) 03:34:53 --- join: proteusguy (~proteusgu@ppp-110-168-198-139.revip5.asianet.co.th) joined #forth 03:34:53 --- mode: ChanServ set +v proteusguy 04:01:46 --- join: Savoyard (~Savoyard@unaffiliated/savoyard) joined #forth 04:32:29 --- quit: samrat (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.) 05:13:29 --- join: Zarutian (~Adium@168-110-22-46.fiber.hringdu.is) joined #forth 05:15:50 --- quit: Bahman (Quit: bbl) 05:24:20 --- quit: proteusguy (Remote host closed the connection) 05:51:18 --- quit: Savoyard (Quit: Be back later ...) 06:08:02 --- join: Bahman (~Bahman@188.159.235.203) joined #forth 06:32:23 --- join: samrat (~samrat@123.236.183.195) joined #forth 06:51:02 --- quit: Bahman (Remote host closed the connection) 06:56:30 --- join: Bahman (~Bahman@188.159.235.203) joined #forth 07:02:11 --- join: Savoyard (~Savoyard@unaffiliated/savoyard) joined #forth 07:06:51 --- quit: Savoyard (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 07:53:34 --- join: xyh (~xieyuheng@2001:250:3002:5550:6ea1:cc0f:bcb2:b187) joined #forth 07:57:04 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@142-254-26-6.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com) joined #forth 07:59:59 --- quit: darkf (Quit: Leaving) 08:18:38 --- quit: xyh (Remote host closed the connection) 08:26:50 --- join: le4fy (~le4fy@n2-108-51.dhcp.drexel.edu) joined #forth 08:28:13 --- quit: protist (Quit: Konversation terminated!) 08:47:42 --- quit: mnemnion (Remote host closed the connection) 08:48:09 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@142-254-26-6.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com) joined #forth 08:50:05 --- quit: le4fy (Quit: leaving) 08:52:29 --- quit: mnemnion (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 09:03:34 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@c-98-210-219-91.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #forth 09:16:21 --- quit: Bahman (Quit: brb) 09:18:07 --- join: Bahman (~Bahman@188.159.235.203) joined #forth 09:47:54 --- join: kumul (~mool@64.237.239.22) joined #forth 09:49:24 --- join: true-grue_ (~grue@95-27-142-71.broadband.corbina.ru) joined #forth 09:52:28 --- quit: true-grue (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 09:56:25 --- quit: chemuduguntar (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) 12:03:17 --- quit: Zarutian (Quit: Leaving.) 12:21:05 --- join: _spt_ (~jaat@unaffiliated/-spt-/x-5624824) joined #forth 12:24:39 --- join: Savoyard (~Savoyard@unaffiliated/savoyard) joined #forth 12:38:36 --- join: Hakkavelin2 (~Polarina@fire-out.ru.is) joined #forth 12:42:17 --- join: Mat4 (~claude@ip18861915.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de) joined #forth 12:42:24 hello 12:46:02 Hello. What is the progress on that OS? 12:49:59 what OS? 12:49:59 I have start last week, it progresses fast however (some code I've had written before and can be reused) 12:50:54 biggest part of it is the USB stack (for which I use the Linux sources as reference) 12:51:33 * Mat4 thinks USB as part of a problem and not its solution 12:53:52 Indeed like Charles Moore said: "USB is a standard people have to live with. ". 12:59:37 yes, like UEFI 13:00:33 not to forget SecureBoot 13:06:03 --- nick: Mat4 -> Mat4|work 13:13:56 --- quit: samrat (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.) 13:15:34 --- quit: true-grue_ (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 13:20:38 --- quit: tangentstorm (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.2) 13:34:16 --- join: tangentstorm (~michal@108-218-151-22.lightspeed.rcsntx.sbcglobal.net) joined #forth 14:08:10 --- quit: nighty^ (Quit: Disappears in a puff of smoke) 14:14:17 --- quit: fantazo (Quit: Verlassend) 14:34:23 ciao 14:34:26 --- part: Mat4|work left #forth 14:49:07 --- quit: kumul (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 15:19:53 --- join: mark4_ (~mark4@cpe-68-203-183-77.tx.res.rr.com) joined #forth 15:23:33 --- quit: karswell (*.net *.split) 15:23:33 --- quit: DKordic (*.net *.split) 15:23:34 --- quit: newcup (*.net *.split) 15:23:35 --- quit: koisoke (*.net *.split) 15:23:35 --- quit: enthos (*.net *.split) 15:23:37 --- quit: malyn (*.net *.split) 15:23:38 --- nick: malyn_ -> malyn 15:23:44 --- join: koisoke (xef4@epilogue.org) joined #forth 15:24:33 --- join: enthos (~enthos@219-86-128-208.dynamic.tfn.net.tw) joined #forth 15:25:02 --- join: karswell (~user@87.113.81.255) joined #forth 15:25:21 --- nick: malyn -> 7YUAAAADG 15:25:30 --- join: malyn (~malyn@server.strangegizmo.com) joined #forth 15:25:35 --- quit: _spt_ (Quit: gone to fix a server for Staffc CC) 15:26:29 --- join: DKordic (~user@178-221-249-236.dynamic.isp.telekom.rs) joined #forth 15:29:41 --- quit: Savoyard (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) 15:51:06 --- quit: Bahman (Quit: zzZZ) 17:06:29 --- join: kumul (~mool@adsl-64-237-239-214.prtc.net) joined #forth 17:47:44 --- join: Zamenhof (~Greyhat@12.181.213.135) joined #forth 17:51:34 --- join: kyfho (d1069359@gateway/web/freenode/ip.209.6.147.89) joined #forth 18:27:07 greetings. question for the forth fans here... 18:27:43 anyone use forth as a base for writing the tools for a compiler for a more convetional language? 18:28:27 it is standard to use C, but forth has greater appeal in how simple it is to implement on virtually any platform. 18:46:58 --- quit: kyfho (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 19:27:14 --- part: Adeon left #forth 19:36:09 Zamenhof: that an interesting idea. (answer: no I don't!) 19:37:03 I did just stumble across an old Fig-Forth maker that supposedly was going to put pascal untop of forth... 19:37:26 --- join: darkf (~darkf___@unaffiliated/darkf) joined #forth 19:39:59 http://tangentstorm.github.io/winfield-pascal-83.html 19:40:08 this might be our tangentstorm ? 19:42:35 indeed 19:42:42 cool stuff 19:43:21 i'm not the author of that article though. i just transcribed it. that guy is now a professor of robotics or something. 19:43:40 I was originally referring to a FIG forth written for the CoCo2. The manual "promised" something like this. 19:44:01 oh and i started translating it to retro, but bottomed out because i didn't know what the old forth words meant. (it's actually forth 83, iirc) 19:44:17 ah 19:45:07 i also added a retro backend to a PL0 compiler. 19:45:19 cool. 19:46:00 https://github.com/tangentstorm/PL0-Language-Tools <- somewhere in there 19:46:22 it's a really simple language though. only has ints as a data structure. 19:46:32 so... i guess no data structures. :) 19:47:02 gotcha 19:53:36 forth has so much in common with Lisp, except it is so close to bare metal. 19:54:09 which is needed when bootstrapping something on a new system. 19:54:47 I'm surprised more people haven't tried it. 19:56:46 lack of syntax. no operators. no statements. no infix. 19:57:19 it scares the bejezus out of peeple really. 19:58:06 but that's the beauty -- you can add whatever you need. 19:58:22 IDK, maybe b/c I'm a Lisp fan, I can see the beauty in forth. 19:59:56 Another lisper who is a big fan of forth -- http://www.hcsw.org/reading/forth.txt 20:01:01 http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ForthVsLisp <--- scroll down to star trek guys... this alway cracks me up. 20:01:14 are you going to make an esperanto forth? :D 20:03:24 jes :) 20:04:16 cool :) 20:04:48 "forth is the only programming language that has a strong, vocal user community that is actively against the ANSI standard of its language" 20:04:58 hahaha... true 20:05:06 I really just want to write the foundations for a compiler infrastructure on top of it. 20:05:38 like what? 20:06:02 something like LLVM, but more portable, and not in C++ *barf* 20:06:03 words for parsing, tree manipulation, tree transforms? 20:06:17 yes. 20:07:32 I'm playing around with FICL atm. 20:08:19 in the ideal world, I'd bootstrap up the forth system primitives in assembly, but 20:08:30 a C based forth like FICL will be more practical. 20:11:41 --- join: xyh (~xieyuheng@2001:250:3002:5550:6ea1:cc0f:bcb2:b187) joined #forth 20:17:14 --- join: samrat (~samrat@123.236.183.195) joined #forth 20:21:31 lol, I use the ansi forth docs as a source of inspiration for how my forth should work, nothing more 20:22:34 me too. I have some new forthies that keep asking me to work on a FIG implementation... I don't want to burst there bubble, but.... 20:24:05 where do you acquire your forthies, beretta ? :) 20:24:22 I think my biggest issue is that the ansi stuff wants to be backwards compatible, but I don't care about that for mine 20:24:32 I think their heads exploded when I mentioned that LOAD can "take" and "return" *other* stack item other than the block no. :) 20:24:55 tangentstorm: retro computing. 20:24:58 like stuff that says it should return null terminated character strings instead of counted 20:25:10 no thanks, I'll make it return counted strings 20:26:32 just null-terminate a counted string 20:26:46 ^ that's what free pascal does, for c compatability. 20:26:53 well, that's hard in some cases 20:27:00 specifically input buffer 20:27:17 to null terminate that, you have to copy out into another buffer 20:27:23 what? why? 20:27:29 null terminate a single word of it, I mena 20:27:32 mean* 20:28:11 tangentstorm, if you dont know f83 ask me what ever words you dont know, ill tell u :) 20:29:13 i have many issues with ans forth 20:29:19 actually, that was the very first question i ever asked in here, mark4_ ... :) i didn't actually know what dialect i was looking at back then. 20:29:21 like NOT being broken again 20:29:39 (but somebody eventually pointed me to the forth 83 standard online) 20:29:42 and i hate postpone 20:31:16 Vendan: well i guess fpc uses counted strings interally but if you ask for a c string, it gives you a structure that's basically a pointer+count ... and then the data it points to has the null char at the end. 20:31:26 why do you hate postpone? (not being sarcastic, just curious) 20:31:31 but inside pascal, you just use the count. 20:32:28 compile <-- used to compile the next token out of the EXECUTION stream 20:32:38 [compile] used to compile the next token out of the INPUT stream 20:32:58 postpone <-- the other two are too confusing for me so lets use a word that can do both 20:33:11 what is the execution stream? 20:33:27 : foo compile bar ; 20:33:39 oh i see what you mean. 20:33:40 when foo runs BAR gets compiled into the definition being created 20:33:57 : foo [compile] bar ; <-- bar is taken out of the input stream and compiled 20:34:00 that makes perfect sense. i just hadn't heard that term before. 20:34:02 because bar is probably immediate 20:34:19 and im too stupid to know what words are and are not immediate 20:34:31 so i need an ans forth word to be mommy and hold my hand for me 20:34:31 so the second foo does nothing at runtime, right? 20:34:37 correct 20:34:50 for example 20:35:34 : if compile ?branch >mark ; immediate 20:35:59 IF is an immediat word. when you use it IT compiles a ?branch to an unknown forward address 20:36:17 --- quit: samrat (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 20:36:18 >mark is usually "here 0 ," the 0 is the branch target 20:36:19 the HERE marks where that is 20:36:38 so the then is : then >resolve ; immediate 20:36:55 with >resolve being something like here swap ! 20:37:06 that might be too confusing tho lol 20:37:15 might not have been a good example 20:37:33 thing is compile and [compile] might have similar sounding names but they have TOTALLY different purposes 20:37:36 mark4_: will your os support network? 20:37:50 --- join: samrat (~samrat@123.236.183.195) joined #forth 20:37:55 yufan i already sort of do but i didnt write the resolver yet 20:37:57 well, I understand that, though in my stuff I'm using a word I named postpone 20:38:14 isforth for x86 linux already has an irc bot example :) 20:38:19 tho its probably not working now 20:38:27 lol 20:38:28 ah.. "postpone" made more sense to me too. 20:38:30 just dont define "invert" 20:38:44 I think I'm just confused on the difference between compile and postpone 20:38:49 postpone does NOT describe wtf its doing 20:39:11 Vendan: what about LIT and literal? 20:39:25 (lit) you mean 20:39:26 they are certainly tricky.. I had trouble with them too. 20:39:31 : literal compile (lit) , ; 20:39:34 immediate 20:39:43 yeah ^ 20:40:25 im getting close to having my arm thumb2 forth working 20:40:43 though, I use what is currently an already compiled version of : LITERAL POSTPONE LIT , ; for it 20:41:22 vendan what if you want LITERAL inside some other definition 20:41:27 : foo .... LITERAL .... ; 20:41:28 to be honest, I may have implemented my postpone closer to what compile actually is 20:41:31 how would you do that 20:42:23 or to put it another way. how do you make an immediate word compile at compile time instead of execute 20:42:27 thats whatn [compile] does 20:42:41 : [compile] ' , ; immediate 20:43:02 tick comma 20:43:09 assuming you know both of those words :) 20:43:23 :P yes, I know those 20:43:39 : ' define 0= ?missing ; 20:43:46 : defined bl word find ; 20:43:55 man i have 99% of my compilers memorized lol 20:44:11 : ' defined 0= ?missing ; even 20:45:13 hrm, in mine, with a literal as : LITERAL POSTPONE LIT , ; IMMEDIATE 20:45:23 I'm curious -- what exactly is the problem people have with the forth standards? 20:45:27 I can do : foo POSTPONE LITERAL ; 20:45:36 and 1 : test foo . ; 20:45:45 and test echos out a 1 20:46:08 vendan so your postpone does the job of both compile and [compile] 20:46:15 yeah 20:46:25 which i say is great for people who do not want to learn the language they are programming in 20:46:42 I think that's how ANS defines "POSTPONE" btw... 20:46:45 postpone is an abomination that HIDES the true nature of the language from the user 20:46:49 it is 20:47:32 question, what's the benefit to having compile and [compile] separate then? 20:47:34 that was the entire reason for postpone, us morons are too stupid to be able to differentiate betwen compile and [compile] because they have similar names and how the hell am i expected to remember what words are immediate and which are not 20:47:54 so... i know.. lets have the compile be mommy and hold my hand then i dont need to learn forth 20:48:11 haha 20:48:13 Vendan, they are similar SOUNDING words. they ahve totally different purposes 20:48:28 i.e. they are more self documenting 20:48:42 i dont even like the ans word "to" because it ALSO does not describe its function 20:48:52 the word is called !> and is pronounced STORE TO 20:49:06 ok, but I'm doing stuff that would apparently need both, with a single word that is rather simple in definition... 20:49:10 not "to" <-- does NOT state that a store operation is being performed 20:49:33 : foo .... [compile] [compile] .... ; <-- 20:50:19 basically i think the ans forth standard GIMPED OUT. they went limp wristed on 99% of the decisions they made and they turned an elegant simple, beautiful language into a C wannabe 20:50:28 and what would that be for, compiling a [compile] into the definition? 20:50:39 for the sake of portability... something NO ans forth can achieve 20:50:57 #ifdef IFORTH .... special code for iforth 20:51:08 #ifdef some_other_forth.... 20:51:29 you look at the ans forth benchmarking code by the dood that wrote iforth i forget his name 20:51:51 its got a bnch of conditional compilation bullshit at the top of every file because theres no fucking such thing as portable code 20:51:57 not even C is portable 20:52:10 which is why you have to interleave 24524 different versions of the same thing into the same files 20:52:25 one of my biggest gripes with C as a programming language 20:52:36 vendan yes 20:52:51 : bar [compile] [compile] .... ; 20:53:07 would basically be the same as : bar [compile] ... ; if [compile] were not immediate 20:53:28 : blah postpone postpone postpone foo ; <-- i HATE that shit 20:53:34 it hides whats going on. 20:53:59 : blah postpone x postpone y postpone z ; immediate <-- i see lots of shit like that too 20:54:14 cluster fuck gordian knot sorce 20:54:36 how would you do that better with compile or [compile]? 20:54:42 the best solution to any problem is always A L W A Y S the simplest solution 20:54:57 compile and [compile] are simple. postpone is not 20:55:09 Vendan, better at what? 20:55:30 : blah postpone x postpone y postpone z ; immediate or : blah postpone postpone postpone foo ; 20:55:31 I have "pp" it just compiles the action of a immediate word. 20:55:32 its better because its more readable. you see a postpone you dont know if its doing the job of compile or if its doing the job of [compile] 20:55:40 ah 20:55:42 you have to INTERPRET the code 20:55:53 you have to follow what its doing at run time and at compile time 20:56:17 with compile and [compile] you dont need to interpret the code, the code TELLS you what the fuck its doing 20:56:29 :) 20:56:46 another pet peve as stated above is "invert" 20:57:01 79 standard (or maybe the fig standard) had a broken definition for NOT 20:57:06 --- quit: samrat (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.) 20:57:20 the 83 standard FIXED not 20:57:47 ans comes along, sees two implementations for not, one BROKEN and one fixed... and says oh crap... we cant define NOT because that would break one or other code base! 20:57:57 /facepalm 20:58:04 so they invented "invert" 20:58:08 wasn't the ANS solution was to just let the user decide what "not" meant? 20:58:30 no the ans solution was to COP OUT 20:58:35 lol 20:58:42 they should simply have defined NOT as exactly what it is 20:58:45 a 1's complement 20:58:55 the broken definition for not was this 20:58:58 : not 0= ; 20:59:01 BROKEN 20:59:04 no wonder CM preaches against ANS now. 20:59:06 not is not a test for equality with 0 20:59:27 The ans forth standard does not describe the forth language but a language of the same name 20:59:30 -- Chuck Moore - 20:59:45 haha 20:59:59 that was from his /. article if i remember right 21:00:45 i dont hate the people pushign ans forth, just ans forth 21:01:30 i find ans forths to be far more complex than they need to be 21:01:46 my forths are very simple at the forth kernel level 21:01:46 another thing that bugs me is that it maintains blocks as the holy grail of disk access methods 21:02:03 kinda like reading the gforth source? :) 21:02:07 Vendan, actually chuck moore agrees with that 21:02:17 gforth is not forth, neither is any other forth written in c 21:02:30 NONE of my forths are real forths yet 21:02:31 why? 21:02:35 meh, I like blocks for low level stuff and for embedded hardware 21:02:38 bcause they cannot recompile themselves yet 21:02:48 blocks are good for doing database stuff too 21:02:54 but I prefer files when you are on a filesystem 21:03:05 actually, my AVR forth is metacompiled lol so it counts as real 21:03:15 for source code a file is much better 21:03:42 i wrote the avr assembler under isforth and then used that to metacompile an avr forth kernel 21:03:47 not finished yet :/ 21:03:57 but that counts as a real forth 21:04:00 and it bugs me that you have to have block access to have file access, according to ans forth 21:04:22 there is not one forth out there that is ans compat 21:04:24 you CANT be 21:04:26 heh, that's what I'm working towards, though I'm starting with building my forth in nasm 21:04:29 its impossible 21:04:41 isforth is written in nasm assembler 21:04:48 cool 21:05:04 but my site is down because ive been out of work. need to re register it 21:05:12 the site is still up, just the dns is broken :) 21:05:24 :( 21:05:37 but i could send u a copy of it in email, 21:05:56 but PM the email address 21:06:00 or suffer endless spam lol 21:06:04 this channel is logged 21:06:13 does the server do virtual hosts, or respond to any request on the ip? 21:06:29 the server is still up. the pages are still being hosted 21:06:46 and as a matter of a fact they are hosted on a machine thats on a FORTH INC IP block lol 21:06:50 yeah, I'm asking if you can go to the ip to see the site? 21:07:05 no because that IP serves other sites 21:07:13 k, so virtual hosts 21:07:15 you would have to go to the domain 21:07:16 yes 21:07:33 i can still ssh in to my account by going to the IP 21:17:43 --- join: chemuduguntar (~auser@222-154-118-105.jetstream.xtra.co.nz) joined #forth 21:22:03 what forth books are worth getting. I'm familiar with the ones put up on the net already. 21:22:16 I was wondering if a few of the used forth books on Amazon are worth getting 21:22:32 ie scientific forth by Noble, or OOP in Forth 21:22:37 both are like 45 bucks. 21:24:23 there really are not any other than the 3? you know about 21:24:37 starting forth, thinking forth and the manual from forth inc 21:24:49 no, I have dl'ed those already. 21:24:55 ya lol 21:25:06 i did not know JVN had written a book on forth 21:25:10 I'm looking at more specialized texts 21:25:31 ie scientific calcs in forth, etc. 21:25:48 well im not sure such a book exists 21:27:22 apparently you haven't come across this: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ou49xpa 21:27:43 scientific forth by julian noble 21:28:04 I came across some papers of his, looks like the book migth be worth reading 21:28:33 lol, I love the vertical mirroring of the title 21:28:34 nope never saw that befofre 21:29:11 --- nick: beretta -> nigel 21:29:13 im not really a math guy :) 21:29:17 it would all be way over my head 21:29:39 anyway... i have to get up for work tomorrow and i want to fix this last bug before i zone out :) 21:29:41 --- nick: nigel -> Guest13564 21:29:45 --- nick: Guest13564 -> beretta 21:31:25 mark4_: that sounds like trouble... 21:31:27 --- quit: xyh (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) 21:38:54 --- join: samrat (~samrat@61.12.96.226) joined #forth 21:46:12 --- quit: samrat (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.) 21:52:18 --- join: samrat (~samrat@61.12.96.226) joined #forth 21:52:20 --- join: MrMobius_ (~MrMobius@50.96.163.86) joined #forth 22:01:42 --- quit: Zamenhof (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 22:07:06 --- join: proteusguy (~proteusgu@180.183.133.116) joined #forth 22:07:09 --- mode: ChanServ set +v proteusguy 22:19:26 --- quit: MrMobius_ (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) 22:53:33 WOOO, just got CREATE DOES> working! 22:54:30 and now, cause it's nearly 2:00am, to crash hard 23:22:03 --- quit: kumul (Quit: Leaving) 23:25:44 --- join: Bahman (~Bahman@188.159.235.203) joined #forth 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/15.01.06