00:00:00 --- log: started forth/19.01.26
00:05:33 --- join: tabemann (~tabemann@2600:1700:7990:24e0:8d7a:3d82:9669:8573) joined #forth
01:59:56 <corecode> jo
01:59:57 <corecode> hi*
02:02:55 --- quit: ashirase (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
02:07:04 --- join: ashirase (~ashirase@modemcable098.166-22-96.mc.videotron.ca) joined #forth
02:26:58 --- quit: smokeink (Quit: Leaving)
02:35:01 <corecode> i just realized that for forth, calls to words can only go backwards
02:36:43 --- join: proteusguy (~proteusgu@cm-58-10-155-25.revip7.asianet.co.th) joined #forth
02:36:43 --- mode: ChanServ set +v proteusguy
02:57:10 <jn__> corecode: indirect calls can go to newer words though
03:03:27 <corecode> yes, but those are not calls
03:03:45 <corecode> they're something else i don't know yet
03:03:58 <corecode> i guess i need an indirect call op
03:07:06 <jn__> i've seen them implemented as:
03:07:19 <jn__> CREATE foo    ' bla foo !
03:07:26 <jn__> foo @ EXECUTE
03:07:54 <jn__> (or with DEFER/IS in ANS'12)
03:11:54 <corecode> well yea, but now you need to implement EXECUTE, which is exactly the indirect call :)
03:34:25 <WilhelmVonWeiner> I mean you can just call the address on the stack
03:34:34 <WilhelmVonWeiner> and the return from that address
03:35:43 <corecode> "just"
03:35:56 <WilhelmVonWeiner> yeah
03:36:03 <corecode> i'm building the cpu
03:36:07 <corecode> nothing is "just" :)
03:36:15 <WilhelmVonWeiner> oh physically?
03:36:20 <corecode> well, in an fpga
03:36:25 <WilhelmVonWeiner> less "just"
03:37:06 <WilhelmVonWeiner> you're building a forth CPU, so a call just pushes the current address to the return stack right?
03:37:07 <corecode> so yea, i guess i need a path to set IP from TOS
03:37:16 <corecode> yes
03:37:23 <corecode> well, it needs to do more
03:37:36 <corecode> it also needs to update IP
03:37:50 <corecode> it needs to put IP_next on the rstack
03:37:55 <corecode> no
03:37:57 <corecode> IP_inc
03:38:32 <corecode> and make IP_next take the immediate argument
03:39:04 <WilhelmVonWeiner> I have no idea what you're talking about now, sorry
03:39:22 <corecode> well, there is a IP register
03:39:24 <WilhelmVonWeiner> you just have a `call` inst that pushes ip+1 to the return stack
03:39:32 <WilhelmVonWeiner> and sets ip to TOS
03:39:42 <WilhelmVonWeiner> and ret sets ip to TORS
03:39:43 <corecode> no, that's EXECUTE
03:40:01 <corecode> call takes an immediate from the instruction
03:40:28 <corecode> there are different paths, one is where the next IP comes from
03:40:56 <corecode> the other is where TORS comes from
03:41:08 <WilhelmVonWeiner> so it's not a zero operand stack processor
03:41:22 <corecode> say what?
03:41:40 <corecode> no, calls and literals have immediate operands
03:42:24 <corecode> you need immediate operands, or you cannot produce literals
03:43:03 <WilhelmVonWeiner> nah
03:43:08 <corecode> nah?
03:45:13 <corecode> i guess you could start with a 1 in TOS, and create other numbers just by executing dup and add
03:45:24 <corecode> but that's super tedious
03:45:44 <corecode> that feels like brainfuck
03:46:35 <WilhelmVonWeiner> what?
03:47:04 <corecode> i'm confused by you stating that you don't need immediate arguments
03:47:26 <corecode> because i don't understand how (LITERAL) would work
03:48:17 <WilhelmVonWeiner> you can take the next instruction as a literal
03:48:38 <corecode> that means you have arguments
03:48:58 <WilhelmVonWeiner> not really
03:49:21 <WilhelmVonWeiner> a processor state maybe of "processing as a literal instead of instructions"
03:51:32 <corecode> yes, that's an immediate
03:52:26 <WilhelmVonWeiner> then why can't you implement call using lit
03:52:51 <corecode> i can do call, but not execute that way
03:55:03 <WilhelmVonWeiner> What's the difference between your call and execute
03:55:23 <corecode> call takes an immediate, execute takes from TOS
03:56:54 <WilhelmVonWeiner> then just use execute
03:57:03 <WilhelmVonWeiner> simpler 
03:59:11 <WilhelmVonWeiner> call is just like "rpush(ip + 1); ip = TOS"
03:59:30 <corecode> i agree that it can be done that way
03:59:58 <corecode> but given that word calls are one of the most frequent things, it makes sense to have them execute in one cycle and take one instruction only
04:00:15 <corecode> call is very similar to branch
04:01:48 <WilhelmVonWeiner> Oh I see
04:10:33 <dave0> corecode: is your forth subroutine-threaded?
04:11:21 <dave0> oh you're designing your own cpu
04:11:25 <dave0> nevermnd
04:26:39 --- join: rdrop-exit (~markwilli@112.201.166.158) joined #forth
04:41:05 --- join: xek (~xek@apn-31-0-23-82.dynamic.gprs.plus.pl) joined #forth
04:59:12 --- quit: rdrop-exit (Quit: Lost terminal)
05:41:29 <mark4> corecode: literal ls easy
05:42:05 <mark4> when forth executes it fetches the next execution token and jumps to it. so foo bar 10 fud....
05:42:15 <mark4> fetch foo, execute foo, fetch bar, execute bar
05:42:20 <mark4> cant execute 10
05:42:27 <mark4> 10 is not an xt its a number
05:42:34 <mark4> so you compile that as (lit) 10
05:42:53 <mark4> fetch (lit) execute (lit) and THAT fetches the 10 and puts it on the stack
05:43:00 <mark4> the word literal compiles (lit) AND the 10
05:46:09 --- join: dddddd (~dddddd@unaffiliated/dddddd) joined #forth
05:54:49 --- quit: xek (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
05:58:16 <corecode> mark4: are you talking about a cpu design?
06:00:47 <mark4> how you do it in a cpu is not going to be that different
06:01:03 <corecode> have you experience in designing CPUs?
06:01:08 <corecode> i'd love to get some feedback
06:01:15 <mark4> it woluld be like an immediate load "lda #$01" encoded as A9 01 on 6502
06:01:37 <corecode> nono, i'm not *using* a CPU, i'm designing one
06:01:48 <mark4> i know
06:03:14 * Zarutian points corecode to Stack Machines The New Wave By Philip Koopman
06:03:40 <Zarutian> you might also want to take a look at J1 which is originally for Gameduino 1
06:15:52 <corecode> well i'm trying not to copy something but arrive at the conclusions myself
06:22:07 --- join: saml_ (~saml@cpe-74-66-242-225.nyc.res.rr.com) joined #forth
06:22:14 --- quit: saml_ (Remote host closed the connection)
06:35:21 <WilhelmVonWeiner> shoulders of giants
06:40:13 <Zarutian> corecode: oh, I see. But there are quite a few design decisions ya need to make
06:40:26 <corecode> yea i know :)
06:55:57 <ttmrichter> corecode: I'd make an array of small Forth processors.  Say ... 144 of them?  With half the memory slots in each processor filled with fixed, processor-specific core routines and the other half open to end-user words?  And with specialized processors with task-specific fixed routines on the "outside" of the array?
06:56:03 <ttmrichter> Sounds like a nifty architecture to me.
06:56:12 <ttmrichter> Perhaps make it ... 36-bit words?
06:56:45 <WilhelmVonWeiner> I still don't get the 36 bit word size , honestly
06:57:05 <ttmrichter> I suspect that was just the word size that fit best in the cells he had.
06:57:39 <WilhelmVonWeiner> Well, the S40 has 18-bit words
06:58:43 <WilhelmVonWeiner> but I remember reading a comment by Albert van der Horst about how 18 bits was decision made based exclusively on some weird 18-bit memory chips that were popular
06:59:51 <corecode> haha
07:00:11 <corecode> i think ttmrichter is trying to reference some mad design decisions from ages past
07:00:39 <ttmrichter> I'm making gentle fun of GreenArrays, corecode.  ;)
07:00:58 <ttmrichter> What I just described is the high-level overview of the GA144.
07:01:15 <WilhelmVonWeiner> I have two GA144s that I haven't used, had them for about a year
07:01:34 <corecode> like most devboards :)
07:01:35 <ttmrichter> I was interested in the GA144 until I actually tried to deal with the company.
07:01:38 <WilhelmVonWeiner> I can't find a circuit diagram to set up the Schmartboard dev board
07:02:07 <WilhelmVonWeiner> and currently can't be bothered to solve it myself 
07:02:08 <ttmrichter> After they blew off not one, not two, but THREE attempts to get some questions answered, I gave up.
07:02:19 <WilhelmVonWeiner> what questions?
07:02:58 <ttmrichter> Some technical questions about designing a board based on them, and some typical questions also that an interested purchaser would be making: pricing, availability, etc.
07:03:31 <ttmrichter> They scheduled three Q&A sessions with a "sales engineer" and three times blew them off.
07:03:59 <WilhelmVonWeiner> Rumour has it they're working on a new chip and dev board. Could be why.
07:04:07 <ttmrichter> This was YEARS ago.
07:04:21 <ttmrichter> Like when the GA144 was still newish.
07:04:23 <WilhelmVonWeiner> Was going to say, doesn't justify such bad practices anyway
07:05:16 <ttmrichter> I got the distinct impression from them that they were one of those companies that if you weren't committing to a million units out the gate without any work on their end, you were ultra-low priority.
07:09:39 <zy]x[yz> maybe it's just you
07:09:42 <WilhelmVonWeiner> ...so, practically everyone?
07:09:57 <WilhelmVonWeiner> who's ordering GA144s?
07:11:47 <ttmrichter> They apparently sell to the US government.  Likely military.
07:11:57 <ttmrichter> Who'll gladly shell out millions for things sight unseen.
07:14:16 <WilhelmVonWeiner> I know they got a massive Bitcoin donation
07:14:22 <WilhelmVonWeiner> paid off all their debt
07:16:50 <zy]x[yz> sounds like a front
07:17:06 <zy]x[yz> is chuck actually a mob boss?
07:19:32 <WilhelmVonWeiner> that's how mafia works
07:35:28 --- quit: X-Scale (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
07:38:41 <Zarutian> ttmrichter: re Green Arrays the company: yeah this is the difference between South Semiconductior Corp and Texas Instruments. The latter is still around because they sold newly designed chips at cost to anyone interested to see if there were any applications for them. The other one? went bankrupt because it kept trying to chase the 'big purchasers' exclusively.
07:42:18 <Zarutian> which is why I filter "Call for quote" out of all Digi Key and Mouser listings because who has the time or bother to deal with that?
07:48:22 <PoppaVic> heh.. I just saw what I was same printer my sinclair t/s1000 had - 30+ years ago - with BT added, for nearly $80..
07:56:11 --- join: darithorn (~darithorn@75.174.234.76) joined #forth
07:56:56 <corecode> Zarutian: amen
08:44:49 <Zarutian> what some of those companies do not realize that some of the hobbyists buyers are R&D guys at big corps or lucrative corps trying out some ideas.
08:48:16 <corecode> well or hobbyist stuff percolating through
08:48:26 <corecode> like atmega chips
08:49:46 <Zarutian> I like the recentish option of using the WatchDogTimer as an interrupt source instead of just a resetting device
08:55:13 <pointfree> WilhelmVonWeiner, ttmrichter: There are new ga144 devboards on the way and they won't require soldering pin headers and decoupling caps https://twitter.com/mike_schuldt
08:55:46 <WilhelmVonWeiner> I should make a Twitter account.
08:58:38 <corecode> why?
09:02:42 * PoppaVic sighs
09:03:02 <PoppaVic> I hate stupidly deleting a core file.. gdmfml
09:03:03 <WilhelmVonWeiner> Because my existing twitter account is exclusively used to get an endless stream of high-intensity pornography
09:04:10 <WilhelmVonWeiner> a high-intensity stream of endless pornography
09:04:25 <corecode> sounds good enough?
09:06:45 --- quit: dave0 (Quit: dave's not here)
09:49:26 <Zarutian> hmm.. what is it called when a pointer is also used like an enum value?
09:50:01 <corecode> ident?
09:50:39 <Zarutian> an example to explain what I mean: lets say I have an array of 64 bytes. I am using the last 52 to represent playing cards
09:51:25 <Zarutian> for an 'stack' of cards, each card in it points to the next one or zero
09:52:40 <Zarutian> (by using the array index of the card not a full blown memory pointer)
09:54:50 <corecode> ah, linked list using offsets?
09:55:30 <Zarutian> yebb, but where the offsets themself have 'meaning'
09:57:38 <corecode> yea, they form the linked list
10:00:32 <Zarutian> lets say index 0x1 means the draw deck. That 'seat' of the array has the value 0x21 which is 'the jack of diamonds'
10:01:08 <Zarutian> but at index 0x21 there is the value 0x10 which is another card and so on
10:02:10 <Zarutian> but yeah I found this rather compact and neat way of representing deck of cards in an old 21 program
10:02:25 <corecode> yes, that's a linked list
10:03:44 <Zarutian> I know it is a linked list but it builds on that a bit because there are no other 'fields' for each element of the list other than the next 'pointer'
10:10:23 <corecode> ah
10:10:35 <corecode> yea, well
10:10:46 <corecode> you can make up your own name
10:12:47 --- quit: pierpal (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
10:41:46 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
11:01:12 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
11:05:34 --- quit: pierpal (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
11:05:49 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
11:10:07 --- quit: pierpal (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
11:11:33 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
11:12:42 --- quit: pierpal (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
11:12:59 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
11:15:27 --- quit: pierpal (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
11:15:43 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
11:19:55 --- quit: pierpal (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
11:20:17 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
11:24:38 --- quit: pierpal (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
11:27:11 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
11:29:54 --- quit: pierpal (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
11:31:57 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
11:36:11 --- quit: mark4 (Remote host closed the connection)
11:36:20 --- quit: pierpal (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
11:37:31 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
11:41:40 --- quit: pierpal (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
11:45:12 --- join: mtsd (~mtsd@94-137-100-130.customers.ownit.se) joined #forth
11:53:59 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
12:00:14 --- quit: pierpal (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
12:03:17 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
12:07:19 --- quit: dddddd (Remote host closed the connection)
12:10:08 --- quit: pierpal (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
12:33:10 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
12:34:15 --- quit: djinni (Quit: Leaving)
12:43:56 --- quit: pierpal (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
12:50:24 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
12:59:48 --- quit: pierpal (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
13:21:41 --- join: djinni (~djinni@149.56.14.68) joined #forth
13:32:48 --- quit: tabemann (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
13:42:56 --- quit: mtsd (Quit: WeeChat 1.6)
14:13:05 --- quit: Zarutian (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
14:13:49 --- join: Zarutian (~zarutian@173-133-17-89.fiber.hringdu.is) joined #forth
14:22:33 --- join: tabemann (~tabemann@24.196.100.126) joined #forth
15:47:22 --- join: dddddd (~dddddd@unaffiliated/dddddd) joined #forth
16:04:17 --- quit: tabemann (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
16:31:11 --- join: tabemann (~tabemann@rrcs-98-100-171-35.central.biz.rr.com) joined #forth
16:45:35 --- quit: proteusguy (Remote host closed the connection)
16:51:49 --- quit: lonjil (Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.)
16:51:59 --- join: lonjil2 (~quassel@2a02:418:6050:ed15:ed15:ed15:e741:32d6) joined #forth
17:08:36 <PoppaVic> Well, it looks like I recreated the core file... I coulda' screamed this mornin'.
17:21:15 --- join: smokeink (~smokeink@118.131.144.142) joined #forth
17:21:54 --- join: rdrop-exit (~markwilli@112.201.166.158) joined #forth
17:48:54 <rdrop-exit> Bonjour Forthwrights
17:49:59 <PoppaVic> Well, I think I am about ready to start to VM parallel to assembler.
17:50:21 <PoppaVic> to VM/the VM ;-)
17:50:56 <rdrop-exit> Could you elaborate, not sure what you're saying.
17:51:22 <PoppaVic> rdrop-exit: it's a variation on "Hello, I am coding, wtf is wrong with me?"
17:52:09 <rdrop-exit> aha
17:52:24 <PoppaVic> I stupidly deleted the core file before work, recovered some 50% before I left.. Got home, polished it a little - with space for my goodies.. Kicked the makefile a few times.
17:52:43 <zy]x[yz> did you destroy your flu yet
17:53:20 <PoppaVic> Vodka kills flu - I promise.
17:53:37 <rdrop-exit> It's still lingering on, told the kids not to visit today so they don't catch it.
17:54:11 <zy]x[yz> i heard the more children you spread it to, the sooner you get over it
17:54:25 <rdrop-exit> My kids are adults
17:54:33 <PoppaVic> children, adults - pick folks you don't like, by preference ;-)
17:54:40 <zy]x[yz> oh.  i meant to say adults
17:54:59 <rdrop-exit> :)
17:55:03 <PoppaVic> Children are better for all infections... Culling/curing.
17:55:25 <PoppaVic> heh.. I remember "pox parties".. Damned sneaky adults.
17:55:52 --- join: proteusguy (~proteusgu@mx-ll-14.207.171-27.dynamic.3bb.co.th) joined #forth
17:55:52 --- mode: ChanServ set +v proteusguy
17:56:10 <PoppaVic> otoh, I remember "breast feeding" - and not in malls for attention.
17:56:21 <rdrop-exit> No family brunch today, just a lonely croissant.
17:56:39 <rdrop-exit> (it's Sunday here)
17:57:02 <PoppaVic> Yes, thank god.. It's Sunday soon enough - I need a weekend.
17:57:46 <PoppaVic> For a "slow week", I feel damned tired.
18:04:46 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
18:12:30 --- quit: tabemann (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
18:37:41 --- join: tabemann (~tabemann@2600:1700:7990:24e0:8d7a:3d82:9669:8573) joined #forth
18:52:19 --- join: dave0 (~dave0@193.060.dsl.syd.iprimus.net.au) joined #forth
18:52:26 <dave0> hi
18:53:49 <smokeink> hi
18:54:12 <dave0> hi smokeink 
18:54:19 <rdrop-exit> Hello dave0 & smokeink
18:54:57 <dave0> hi rdrop-exit 
19:38:33 <rdrop-exit> What's new in our small corner of the Forth world?
19:45:16 <smokeink> I have a question: how can a word be defined that defines two words?  : W CREATE DOES> DROP 1 . CREATE DOES> DROP 2 . ;    <- how to make this work
19:47:08 <rdrop-exit> Make two defining words, then a word that calls them both
19:49:47 <rdrop-exit> That's one way
19:51:24 <PoppaVic> It sounds like a really bad idea
19:51:54 <PoppaVic> CREATE only looks once into the future.
19:52:54 <smokeink> is there a way to create a word without using create directly, but by using BL WORD ? 
19:53:02 <smokeink> BL WORD ... ... DOES>
19:53:22 <PoppaVic> same issue: looking into the future twice cuts yer balls off to feed the cat.
19:53:31 <smokeink> haha
19:54:38 --- join: gravicappa (~gravicapp@h109-187-28-67.dyn.bashtel.ru) joined #forth
19:54:53 <smokeink> I have some code that uses hardcoded data and I want to automatize it a bit, I will paste it in a few seconds
19:55:05 <PoppaVic> that said, what I do in C is create an .inc file predicated on a macro (or more); define the macros and include the file (which also #undef's the macros) - and I can do this as often as I like.
19:55:10 <rdrop-exit> Some Forths include a variant of CREATE that takes the name from the stack
19:57:34 <PoppaVic> well, that is "slower", but is nice for NOT rereading the future.
19:57:50 <smokeink> PoppaVic can you paste an example ? I'm curious to see your C include
20:00:55 <PoppaVic> smokeink: https://pastebin.com/aQtWLcB8
20:00:56 <smokeink> http://pastecode.ru/8977cd/  <- here is what I need to achieve
20:02:06 <rdrop-exit> I wouldn't do that
20:02:21 <PoppaVic> tour example doesn't look properly decomposed.
20:02:26 <PoppaVic> your
20:03:31 <smokeink> If I change the constant 3, then I have to change it in the code that initializez the Toolbar as well , and I've ran into crashes a few times because I forgot that I have to change the number in 2 different places
20:04:04 <PoppaVic> get rid of it and use a constant - a name like an enum
20:05:06 <smokeink> so you think the upper snippet on my link is the way to go?
20:05:08 <PoppaVic> if you want a table, use a table
20:06:19 <PoppaVic> smokeink: I'd use a table. Or something like Thinking Forth DOER/MAKE
20:06:41 <rdrop-exit> Can you describe what you're trying to achieve (independent of the implementation details)?
20:06:43 <PoppaVic> I don't want to need to remember N - I want a name, and want to form a "senence"
20:06:50 <PoppaVic> sentence
20:09:09 <smokeink> rdop-exit: I want to just define those TB-BUTTON , and it should count automatically how many I've defined
20:09:38 <smokeink> PoppaVic: what's a table? Do you have any link to a tut or book that describes such tables ?
20:09:44 <PoppaVic> A button is "a button", so the base concept is funky
20:10:06 <rdrop-exit> smokeink: Why are you counting them?
20:10:13 <PoppaVic> a table is an array that something knows to lookup and I can forget about.
20:10:25 <PoppaVic> (or even a LL or tree or..)
20:11:16 <smokeink> rdrop-exit: the win32 api CreateToolbarEx expects the number of buttons as a parameter
20:14:46 <rdrop-exit> What is a button, an address?
20:15:47 <rdrop-exit> create buttons fee , fi , fo , fum
20:17:15 <rdrop-exit> here buttons - u/cell constant #buttons
20:17:28 <rdrop-exit> oops forgot a , after fum
20:17:54 <rdrop-exit> create buttons fee , fi , fo , fum ,
20:18:19 <rdrop-exit> here buttons - u/cell constant #buttons
20:19:04 <smokeink> https://github.com/rufig/spf/blob/master/devel/~af/lib/toolbar.f  
20:22:58 <rdrop-exit> what do lines 9-18 do?
20:24:42 <smokeink> they add those numbers together 
20:24:51 <smokeink> the numbers represent the sizes for each struct's member
20:25:52 <smokeink> and also create those words (iBitmap, idCommand, fsState, ...) that can be used to access the struct's fields
20:26:59 <rdrop-exit> there must be something wrong with the display, I'm seeing this:
20:27:03 <rdrop-exit> 0
20:27:03 <rdrop-exit> 4 -- iBitmap
20:27:03 <rdrop-exit> 4 -- idCommand
20:27:03 <rdrop-exit> 1 -- fsState
20:27:03 <rdrop-exit> 1 -- fsStyle
20:27:06 <rdrop-exit> 1 -- bReserved1
20:27:08 <rdrop-exit> 1 -- bReserved2
20:27:11 <rdrop-exit> 4 -- dwData
20:27:13 <rdrop-exit> 4 -- iString
20:27:16 <rdrop-exit> CONSTANT /TBBUTTON
20:27:26 <smokeink> yes
20:27:45 <smokeink> this allocates 4+4+1+1+1+1+4+4 bytes for /TBUTTON
20:28:20 <smokeink> so executing the constant /TBBUTTON just puts the sum 20 on the stack 
20:30:10 <smokeink> the word iBitmap    executes 4 +        
20:30:22 <smokeink> the word idCommand executes 8 +
20:30:23 <rdrop-exit> I see
20:30:27 <smokeink> fsState does 9 +
20:31:33 <smokeink> something like that, 1 sec I got some numbers wrong
20:31:55 <rdrop-exit> That's ok, I get the gist
20:32:30 <smokeink> 0 iBitmap 0 idCommand 0 fsState 0 fsStyle       \  ( 0 4 8 9 )
20:33:00 * smokeink brb
20:33:55 --- quit: darithorn (Quit: Leaving)
20:36:41 --- join: darithorn_ (~darithorn@75.174.234.76) joined #forth
20:36:57 --- quit: darithorn_ (Remote host closed the connection)
20:37:46 * smokeink back
20:41:29 --- join: darithorn_ (~darithorn@75.174.234.76) joined #forth
20:41:36 --- quit: darithorn_ (Remote host closed the connection)
20:53:24 <rdrop-exit> problem solved?
20:55:56 <smokeink> still thinking  
20:57:36 <rdrop-exit> If these buttons are layed down at compile time, then a variant on the idiom I showed you earlier should work.
20:58:29 <smokeink> this one, right ? "Make two defining words, then a word that calls them both"
20:59:03 <rdrop-exit> No, the fee-fi-fo-fum one
20:59:29 <smokeink> <rdrop-exit> here buttons - u/cell constant #buttons           <- here I'd have to type by hand the number for the constant?
21:00:20 <rdrop-exit> create buttons
21:00:31 <rdrop-exit> ... button,
21:00:38 <rdrop-exit> ... button,
21:01:04 <rdrop-exit> here buttons - button# u/ constant #buttons
21:01:32 <smokeink> got it
21:01:50 <smokeink> rdrop-exit & PoppaVic thank you
21:02:07 <rdrop-exit> My pleasure
21:09:00 <PoppaVic> np
21:14:28 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
21:14:47 <rdrop-exit> or if you prefer you can use the name b/button for "bytes per button" instead of button#
21:17:01 <smokeink> good idea
21:17:07 <smokeink> I think I noticed a bug https://github.com/rufig/spf/blob/master/samples/win/spfwc/spf4wc.h.f#L236 here they've defined 19 buttons, https://github.com/rufig/spf/blob/master/samples/win/spfwc/spf4wc.f#L852 but here they've only specified 18 of them 
21:17:57 <smokeink> ah. no, they've skipped number 9
21:18:10 <rdrop-exit> bbiab
21:20:56 <smokeink> so it's okay, they don't have a bug
21:40:40 --- quit: dddddd (Remote host closed the connection)
21:43:55 --- quit: PoppaVic (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
21:55:47 --- join: PoppaVic (~PoppaVic@unaffiliated/poppavic) joined #forth
21:55:57 <PoppaVic> stupid freenode
23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/19.01.26