00:00:00 --- log: started forth/21.05.05
00:32:05 * KipIngram sighs.
00:32:50 <KipIngram> I help moderate a sub over on Reddit.  Its topic is a fictional urban fantasy series referred to as The Dresdenn Files.
00:33:08 <KipIngram> Guy is a wizard who advertises in the phone book in Chicago.
00:34:01 <KipIngram> Standard setup for a lot of such books - the supernatural is real, and various flavors of vampires, werewolves, fairies, and so on are floating around out there, and there are "supernatural nations" operatinng behind the scenes.
00:34:31 <KipIngram> There are 17 novels in the series so far, and it's expected to get on up to 22-23 and then we get a big "climactic trilogy."
00:34:53 <KipIngram> The overall story arc has been outlined from the beginning, and the author's been feeding it out to us for a little over 20 years.
00:35:28 <KipIngram> Anyway, my opinion of the series could not be higher.  I regard the books as amazingly good - very rich world building, characters you can really get into, the works.  Top drawer stuff.
00:36:04 <KipIngram> But it seems like every other week someone's got to get on the reddit and gripe about "misogyny in The Dresden Files."
00:36:53 <KipIngram> We see the world from inside the head of the main character, and part of what we get is very... "vibrant" descriptions of his inner reactions to attractive women - some of whom are supernaturally attractive and therefore produce more than the normal response.
00:37:20 <KipIngram> Supernatural aspect aside, it's a common thing to find in "noir detective fiction."
00:37:45 <KipIngram> I regard those descriptions as extremely accurate - we are, after all, supposed to be in the head of a young American male.
00:38:10 <KipIngram> But people just get so worked up over it - I guess I'm just too old a dog to get into the "new way of thinking" on things like this.  :-|
00:44:38 --- join: deep-thought joined #forth
01:03:35 --- quit: deep-thought (Quit: Leaving)
01:14:19 <KipIngram> AHA - there's something I overlooked.
01:15:32 <KipIngram> If I change the base address variables the way I have things set up now, to compile a target image, then if an error occurs the saved recovery image will be written back over the TARGET.  That won't do.  I have to have separate copies of those base address variables for those two purposes.
01:15:59 <KipIngram> So I was wrong earlier when I said the variables weren't used for anything other than compiling.
01:24:42 <KipIngram> Ok, added comp.b and comp.h as copies of base.b and base.h.  The comps will be the ones to redirect to the target image buffer.
01:27:20 <KipIngram> I don't think there's any reason I can't just set the system CURRENT to a vocabulary in the target region; that ought to work.
01:28:51 <KipIngram> I probably don't want searches to pass into the system dictionary while I'm building the target - that would let some tacky errors creep in.
01:31:20 <KipIngram> I'm still scratching my head a little over that part (the search path).  
01:50:44 <KipIngram> Oh, hmmm.  Another potential gotcha.
01:51:10 <KipIngram> I mentioned earlier that when I parse a word out of the input stream I place it in the correct position to be able to promote it to a dictionary item later on.
01:51:41 <KipIngram> Well, if I want that to work when building a target, THAT also needs to move into the target space.  Because that's where the dictionary I'm building is.
01:52:07 <KipIngram> So even though I'm RUNNING code in the system space, that needs to migrate.
01:52:39 <KipIngram> Oh wait - that may already be taken care of.
01:53:11 <KipIngram> Yeah, I think my dictionary pointer dp.h drives that now, so when I move it to the target it will work out naturally.
01:54:09 <KipIngram> Yes - that's correct.  I actually have a word
01:54:15 <KipIngram> : wbuf  dp.h @ 2+ ;
01:54:32 <KipIngram> The 2+ is to skip over the bytes where the link will need to go.
01:58:35 <KipIngram> One thing is clear, though - the entire build of the target system needs to be one long source load.  Can't stop in the middle and return to the console.  I've got to get the pointers all restored before I try to snapshot the next system image for error recovery.
02:09:11 <KipIngram> You know, I see that there will be a limitation of this approach.
02:09:43 <KipIngram> I won't be able to build a target that has a different dictionary architecture from the running system.  Since I'll be using the running system words to search and build the target dictionary.
02:11:14 <KipIngram> That also seems to mean I can't change cell size.  And there may be endieness compatibility requirements too.
02:12:17 <KipIngram> That's slightly disappointing.  I'd envisioned this as a porting tool.  It may turn out to only be REALLY good for modifying my system on the same platform.
02:25:38 --- quit: actuallybatman (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
03:32:56 --- join: glubs9 joined #forth
03:33:39 <glubs9> hey, I am working through starting forth chapter 11 and it doesn't define control structure words. Do yall know where I could find a source on how control structure works in forth? thank you kindly
03:43:59 --- quit: glubs9 (Quit: Ping timeout (120 seconds))
03:45:59 --- join: glubs9 joined #forth
03:47:15 <KipIngram> If you can chase down a copy of McCabe's "Forth Fundamenntals," you'll be set up.  Volume one is under the hood details of Forth's internals; volume two is a index of Forth words with definitions.
03:47:21 <KipIngram> It's out of print, though.
03:47:29 <KipIngram> You might land a copy on eBay.
03:47:37 <glubs9> thank you :)  I will check it out!
03:47:43 <KipIngram> If you can't find anything I can describe how they work for you.
03:48:07 <KipIngram> They all follow the same general principle.
03:49:05 <KipIngram> Here's volume 2 on Amazon:
03:49:07 <KipIngram> https://www.amazon.com/FORTH-Fundamentals-v-C-K-McCabe/dp/0880560924
03:49:21 <KipIngram> Kind of pricy though.  :-|
03:49:28 <glubs9> yeah, bit of a shame.
03:49:40 <glubs9> it's actually in a library near me so I might go and check that out
03:49:42 <KipIngram> Volume 2 doesn't really "explain" anything - just gives source listing for the words.
03:49:49 <KipIngram> Excellent.
03:50:03 <glubs9> I will be seeing you, thank you again for the help!
03:50:09 --- quit: glubs9 (Client Quit)
04:30:42 <siraben> remexre: so... I have a small-step semantics for Forth now :)
04:30:47 <siraben> easier than expected
04:30:50 <siraben> and I did verify factorial
04:31:12 <siraben> `Definition factorial : com := <{ 1 begin over O= not while over * swap 1 - swap repeat swap drop }>.`
04:31:24 <siraben> and `Example fact6 : forall st p, <{ 3 factorial p }> / st -->* p / (N 6 :: st).` was proved by `repeat econstructor.`
04:32:49 <siraben> it'd be fun to adopt all the equiv, hoare, hoare2 chapters to work with Forth!
04:38:44 <veltas> What are you using to evaluate that?
04:39:02 <siraben> I haven't verified it for all n yet, proof is a bit tedious
04:39:04 <siraben> veltas: Coq
05:10:05 <KipIngram> Here's factorial in my system:
05:10:08 <KipIngram> : fact dup : (fact) 1- swap over * swap dup 1 = 0=me drop ;
05:11:28 <KipIngram> If I wanted to hide the (fact) I could put .: before it instead of : and then execute .wipe afterward.
05:12:31 <KipIngram> I could make it a little shorter but that version doesn't have all of the conditional loop words.
05:12:48 <KipIngram> 0=me is one that it did have, so I hoop jumped a little to use it.
05:12:59 <siraben> KipIngram: heh, if you could describe how your conditional works then I could provide a formal semantics for them!
05:13:25 <siraben> right now the Forth I have only has the stack as state, no memory yet.
05:13:47 <KipIngram> 0=me will recurse to the beginning of the definition (with a jump - not a call) if the flag is 0.
05:13:51 <KipIngram> The flag is consumed.
05:14:01 <KipIngram> If flag is non-zero, execution continues forward.
05:14:25 <KipIngram> I'm thinking of including a bunch of words from my old HP 41 in the system I'm building now.
05:14:33 --- join: proteusguy joined #forth
05:14:33 --- mode: ChanServ set +v proteusguy
05:14:34 <KipIngram> Particularly access to the Y, Z, and T regs.
05:14:51 <KipIngram> So the equuvalent of ST* Y would be valuable here.
05:15:01 <KipIngram> It would cut out quite a few stack diddles.
05:15:24 <KipIngram> I could envision something like this:
05:16:09 <KipIngram> : fact 1 swap : (fact) ysto* 1- .0=me drop ;
05:16:22 <siraben> Ooh, heh
05:16:43 <KipIngram> The . at the front of 0=me makes it not consume the argument.
05:17:29 <KipIngram> That does a couple of extraneous multiplications by 1, but it's terse.  :-)
05:17:47 <KipIngram> Oh, maybe this is better:
05:18:03 <siraben> I like tricks like that, but when formalizing things, I keep the constructs really simple, to reduce the number of cases to deal with, naturally
05:18:13 <KipIngram> : fact dup 1- : (fact) ysto* 1- .0=me drop ;
05:18:34 <KipIngram> That wouldn't work for 1, though.
05:18:58 <KipIngram> This would fix it:
05:19:11 <KipIngram> Oh, never mind.
05:19:15 <KipIngram> Not quite.
05:19:42 <siraben> hmm
05:19:59 <KipIngram> : fact dup 1- (fact) drop ;
05:20:17 <KipIngram> : (fact) ysto* 1- .0=me ;
05:20:34 <KipIngram> Oh, wait - I forgot the fix for 1
05:20:45 <KipIngram> : fact dup 1- (fact) drop ;
05:21:14 <KipIngram> : (fact) .0=; ysto* 1- .0=me ;
05:21:29 <KipIngram> I think that would work, but the conditionals aren't in my system to test it.
05:21:39 <KipIngram> Anyway, I'm a fan of my conditional words.  :-)
05:22:20 <KipIngram> In that last one the .0=me could just be me, no condition.
05:22:39 <KipIngram> Since it loops back and picks up the conditional return at the beginning of the loop.
05:29:39 <siraben> remexre: you'll need to put this in the PLF folder (because it imports Smallstep) https://gist.github.com/siraben/4361eca01cb0395cfa3c993e0dd380f3
05:30:08 <siraben> I gave up on proving `forall (n : nat) st p, <{ factorial p }> / (N n :: st) -->* p / (N (fact n) :: st).`, maybe I'm not using the right lemmas in the inductive case
05:30:28 <siraben> Some notion of congruence would really help here, hm.
05:31:20 <siraben> Currently I have, skip, sequencing, pushing literals, + - *, dup, drop, swap, over, O=, not, if, while
05:32:13 <proteusguy> Hey you guys are actually producing forth code?!?!? YOU CAN'T DO THAT HERE!!! :-)
05:32:34 <siraben> proteusguy: an operational semantics for Forth!
05:32:45 <proteusguy> even worse! gads!
05:32:59 <siraben> hah, how so?
05:33:16 <proteusguy> (I'm just kidding - it's refreshing to see actual forth happening in real life)
05:33:17 <siraben> it's a precise model of Forth, i've been meaning to write it for a while but didn't find anyone else's implementation online
05:34:03 --- quit: dave0 (Quit: dave's not here)
05:34:53 <proteusguy> Don't you know the reason we tell everyone to write their own forth is so they'll get so distracted that they'll never write actual real forth code that makes it out into the wild. This is how we control the "Forth code supply" much in the manner of Bitcoin's "proof of work". Therefore the forth code I wrote in 1985 is still super valuable!
05:36:10 <MrMobius> haha ya someone observed that there are a lot more forth implementations than useful forth programs
05:36:40 <KipIngram> ah man, where's my mind.  not ysto* - it should be y*!
05:37:58 <proteusguy> MrMobius, they aren't wrong! ;-) haha
05:52:53 --- join: tech_exorcist joined #forth
06:51:17 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
07:07:23 --- join: actuallybatman joined #forth
07:19:26 --- join: Zarutian_HTC joined #forth
07:38:45 --- quit: logand` (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
07:39:01 --- join: logand` joined #forth
08:22:41 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Remote host closed the connection)
08:39:22 --- join: Zarutian_HTC joined #forth
08:44:21 <KipIngram> siraben: That TI 84 calculator has what looks like a mini-USB connnector on it, and on the other side of the top it has a round connenctor with |/O under it.
08:44:42 <KipIngram> The round one doesn't really look like a data connection to me - the mini-USB of course does.
08:47:34 <KipIngram> Yes - mini-USB; I found a cable and checked.
08:50:12 <siraben> KipIngram: nice, I didn't know it was called mini-USB
08:50:38 <siraben> great. there's programs on every major OS to send data over
08:51:04 <siraben> if you don't mind non-free software, there's https://education.ti.com/en/products/computer-software/ti-connect-ce-sw
08:57:39 <MrMobius> KipIngram, you have tow old claculators now?!
09:00:12 <MrMobius> looks like the TI-84+ still has the old 2.5mm jack used for data before as well
09:16:10 <KipIngram> I just found a couple that my daughters used to use over the last couple of days.  Unfortunately, the TI-84 doesn't seem to be working.
09:16:16 <KipIngram> I just put new batteries in it - no love.
09:16:30 <KipIngram> The other one is an nSpire, and you guys said it's not very hackable.
09:24:18 <KipIngram> Aha!  It's working.
09:24:21 <KipIngram> The TI-84.
09:24:35 <KipIngram> I had to replace the button battery too, and I guess I found and mashed the reset button.
09:24:49 <KipIngram> TI-84 Plus, 2.43.  RAM cleared.
09:24:54 <KipIngram> And a flashing cursor.
09:25:01 <siraben> KipIngram: nice!!
09:25:17 <KipIngram> So I can load your Forth onto this?
09:25:32 <KipIngram> I may have to wait until my new computer comes.
09:25:34 <siraben> yep
09:25:41 <KipIngram> My employer MacOS can't write to USB.
09:25:52 <KipIngram> They're jerks.
09:25:57 <siraben> Oh wow, how restrictive
09:26:06 <KipIngram> It's so employees can't steal IP.
09:26:08 <KipIngram> But...
09:26:14 <siraben> are you sure usb doesn't work at all?
09:26:22 <KipIngram> We can plug a DVD drive into the port and it works fine.
09:26:25 <KipIngram> So we can burn DVDs.
09:26:38 <siraben> lol there's other ways to get data out for sure
09:26:55 <KipIngram> Well, I can't manage books on my ereader, or music on my iPod, and I can't run that little Cortex M4 dongle.
09:27:40 <KipIngram> But I do have a new computer on order.
09:27:44 <KipIngram> So all will be well.
09:27:56 <KipIngram> My first new computer "for me" in over 9 years.
09:29:39 <KipIngram> Ok, good - it seems to be working just fine.
09:29:54 <KipIngram> Miraculously I had some A76 button cells - that sort of surprised me.
09:30:15 <KipIngram> I went on a binge 12-15 years ago where I was collecting wristwatches.
09:30:31 <KipIngram> So I bought some little tools and a bunch of different kinds of batteries.
09:30:50 <KipIngram> I'm not sure the A76 was for a watch, though - it's a little thick for that.
09:31:11 <siraben> KipIngram: that TI-84+ was used by your daughter for school right?
09:31:22 --- quit: andrei-n (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
09:34:04 <KipIngram> One of them, yes.  One of the older ones, I suppose - it's older than the nSpire I found a couple of days earlier.
09:34:23 <KipIngram> Maybe I got the batteries for it, back then.
09:34:43 <KipIngram> Anyway, I figured there was maybe a 30% chance I'd have the right one, but I hit the jackpot.  :-)
09:35:06 <KipIngram> I'll definitely take your Forth for a test spin.  :-)
09:35:15 <MrMobius> KipIngram, i put lithium AAAs in all my calculators since they dont leak
09:35:35 <KipIngram> Hmmm.  What did I just put in this one?  Lemme check.
09:35:49 <KipIngram> Nah, these are alkalines.
09:36:00 <KipIngram> They're brand new, though - I'll pick up some lithiums sometime soon.
09:36:04 <MrMobius> ya almost always alkaline unless youre trying to get lihtiums
09:36:38 <MrMobius> countless calculators have met their end by leaky batteries...
09:39:03 <KipIngram> No doubt.
09:39:20 <KipIngram> These are probably trustworthy for a little while at least.
09:39:35 <KipIngram> I was pretty bummed when it wasn't working.  
09:39:38 <KipIngram> Happy it worked out.
09:40:00 <KipIngram> Uh oh.
09:40:03 <KipIngram> That's not a good sign.
09:40:14 <KipIngram> I just picked it up and turned it on again, and it said RAM cleared again.
09:40:25 <KipIngram> I'd done a few calculations on it - that was behindn me.
09:40:31 <KipIngram> Looks like it cleared itself again.
09:40:53 <siraben> KipIngram: it might be good to reflash the OS
09:41:05 <MrMobius> i think the curved look of it is terrible. ti and casio made really janky looking calculators then hopefully noticed how dumb it looked and changed most of them back to a normal looking alyout
09:41:07 <MrMobius> layout
09:41:24 <MrMobius> could it be the backup battery?
09:41:55 <siraben> KipIngram: yeah, check the backup battery as well (it's a button)
09:41:55 <KipIngram> I just replaced that too, but those have been around for a while.
09:42:02 <KipIngram> I'll keep an eye on it.
09:42:15 <KipIngram> I took the back cover off - maybe that let the backup battery break contact.
09:42:43 <KipIngram> I'll have a while to tinker with it before my computer comes.
09:42:49 <siraben> nah, back cover shouldn't affect
09:42:54 <siraben> it's screwed with a panel
09:43:02 <KipIngram> Oh, you're right.
09:43:11 <KipIngram> Hmmm.  Well, we'll see.
09:43:18 <siraben> hah, I remember taking the back cover off so many times (because I crashed the calculator when I was hacking on it) that I eventually lost the back cover
09:43:23 <siraben> got a replacement back cover though
09:43:24 <MrMobius> backup batteries usually never leak
09:43:30 <KipIngram> Does it use the backup battery all the time when it's off, or is that there just to cover when you've pulled the main batteries?
09:44:04 <siraben> backup battery doesn't do much IIRC
09:44:10 <siraben> or maybe mine just died a long time ago
09:44:43 <MrMobius> it would make sense for the main batteries to power it all the time. thats how the handful of circuits ive seen for that type of thing work
09:45:00 <KipIngram> Yeah, that's how my old ones worked.
09:51:23 <KipIngram> I think I may need to clean the battery contacts.
09:53:22 <siraben> Yeah maybe try that
09:53:32 <siraben> If that fails, maybe a reflash is in order
10:00:09 --- join: andrei-n joined #forth
10:08:24 <remexre> good morning all :)
10:09:32 <remexre> siraben: maybe the factorial_correct one would be easier with a multi_append sorta thing? I had the full nil/one/cons/snoc/append set in the thing I did
10:09:58 <siraben> remexre: oh, could you elaborate on multi_append?
10:10:16 <remexre> ah, never mind, I just actually looking in smallstep.v, they call it multi_trans
10:11:12 --- join: lispmacs[work] joined #forth
10:11:16 <remexre> I just mean that when you're working with small-step, you really want to be able to ignore the structure of multi and just talk about "there's a subsequence with this type," so adding a bunch of list helpers for multi might be useful
10:11:25 <remexre> but if they already define a bunch, that's probably not useful to say :)
10:11:31 <siraben> Yeah I tried various transitivity assertions but the persistent problem was reassociating the sequencing
10:11:49 <siraben> I might really want to do big-step for this instead, hm.
10:12:06 <remexre> the reassociating feels automatable, but I'm not at *all* comfortable with ltac, lol
10:12:41 <siraben> hm, I can't reassociate because I don't have a notion of program equivalence
10:13:15 <siraben> like, how does it make sense to rewrite A -->* B to C -->* B where A ≅ B?
10:13:24 <siraben> Oops I mean A ≅ C
10:13:51 <siraben> let me know if you somehow manage to prove factorial_correct :)
10:14:16 <remexre> oh, I was thinking something easier; being able to split an A-->*C into A-->*B /\ B-->*C
10:14:18 <siraben> showing `begin dup O= not while dec repeat` always takes the top argument to 0 was pretty doable
10:14:42 <siraben> oh yeah but the problem is A -->* B still has the weird associativity of SSeq
10:14:55 <siraben> SSeq (SSeq A B) C instead of SSeq A (SSeq B C)
10:15:06 <siraben> and I'd really like the latter because, you know, Forth programs are linear
10:15:10 <remexre> ah
10:15:28 <remexre> hm
10:15:33 <siraben> The `CS_SeqAssoc` small-step rule is commented out because if I add it it breaks my automated proof of determinism
10:15:37 <siraben> but that was a possible hack
10:15:59 <remexre> well, you could define a really weak equivalence that's just "I can reassociate SSeq", I suppose
10:16:07 <remexre> but yeah, agreed that's kinda displeasing
10:16:22 <remexre> maybe doing the proof in terms of continuations could help
10:16:27 <siraben> small-step equivalence is tricky, doesn't help that PLF doesn't cover it
10:16:39 <siraben> oh yeah, I read about using a continuation parameter to make small-step better
10:17:02 <remexre> like, forall k, (k -->* c) -> (Seq my_program k -->* c) might be an easier theorem
10:17:16 <remexre> yeah, the CCC paper does this and I found it really neat+helpful
10:17:31 <siraben> I'm still fumbling my way around ltac, it's like part Prolog and part follow your nose
10:17:33 <remexre> er, that type's not quite right
10:18:39 <remexre> forall k n tl, (k / (fact n :: tl)) -->* c) -> (Seq my_program k / (n :: tl) -->* c) is probably closer
10:19:24 <siraben> Ok I see, but what's c here?
10:19:31 <siraben> also, what would my_program be
10:19:33 <remexre> arbitrary state after continuation
10:19:36 <remexre> factorial
10:19:54 <siraben> so this is if I had a continuation-passing semantics?
10:21:06 <remexre> I don't think it (necessarily) needs changes to the semantics, but having the continuation gives you some "slack" to talk about parts of the program
10:21:23 <remexre> because you can just shove things into the continuation, while keeping the same inductive hypothesis
10:24:20 <siraben> Hm, I see.
10:24:35 <siraben> I might need to revisit this later, heh
10:25:41 <remexre> yeah, these are pre-coffee thoughts too, so I might be slightly confused as well :P
10:26:45 <remexre> I'll try doing the proof w/ a different inductive hypothesis and see if it gets me anywhere
10:27:45 <siraben> Ok, thanks. If you have any problems loading let me know
10:28:23 <remexre> got it now, thought I didn't realize I had to run make in the PLF dir first, lol
10:29:24 <siraben> petition to make SF's stuff its own library, haha
10:29:29 <siraben> it's a nice self-contained universd
10:29:32 <siraben> universe
10:29:55 <siraben> it's late here, will return in the morning
10:30:07 <remexre> ok, good night!
10:37:57 --- join: f-a joined #forth
10:41:45 --- quit: f-a (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
10:43:20 <KipIngram> Looks like I got a bad batch of batteries.  It already is telling me they need replacing.
10:43:24 <KipIngram> That's quite lame.
10:45:41 --- join: f-a joined #forth
10:46:34 <KipIngram> I ordered some L92 Lithium ones and also a fresh pack of 76a button batteries.
10:49:17 <KipIngram> Well, the coq link you gave me yesterday, siraben - not clicking yet.  :-)
10:49:27 <KipIngram> But I don't think I've gotten to anything very meaty yet.
11:08:49 <KipIngram> Ok, I had bought 8 AAA bateries.  I've swapped them out one-by-one and now seem to have a reliable set in there.  Seems to be behaving.
11:10:58 --- part: f-a left #forth
11:49:33 --- quit: proteus-guy (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
12:02:01 --- join: proteus-guy joined #forth
12:09:05 <mark4> KipIngram, "Lonter lasting batteries" is marketing wank.  it does not mean lasts longer in your device, it means lasts longer on the shelf before sale
12:09:12 <mark4> which does not mean "lasts forever"
12:10:30 <mark4> not sure if this was BS or legit but one youtuber said that charged batteries bounce bettr than dead ones.. i never tested taht lol
12:10:38 <MrMobius> haha ya these lithiums say lasts 20 years but fine print says on the shelf
12:11:06 <MrMobius> current output graphs to look better than lithiums though especially for high drain stuff
12:24:56 --- quit: mark4 (Remote host closed the connection)
12:38:29 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Remote host closed the connection)
12:39:26 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
12:48:31 --- join: f-a joined #forth
12:59:32 --- quit: f-a (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
13:01:25 --- join: f-a joined #forth
13:04:46 --- join: Zarutian_HTC joined #forth
13:20:44 --- quit: f-a (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
13:23:22 --- join: f-a joined #forth
13:30:15 --- join: mark4 joined #forth
14:03:33 --- quit: andrei-n (Quit: Leaving)
14:06:07 --- quit: tech_exorcist (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
14:40:04 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
14:40:27 --- join: Zarutian_HTC joined #forth
14:50:31 <KipIngram> Hey, are any of you familiar with the "rougue" HP calculator the 34S?
14:51:07 <KipIngram> It's an aftermarket re-flash of a stock HP calculato, with key stickies to relabel the keys.
14:51:24 <KipIngram> It was an attempt to make the "ultimate" scientific non-graphing calculator.
14:51:33 <KipIngram> Has a huge amount of stuff in it.
14:55:41 <KipIngram> https://commerce.hpcalc.org/34s.php
14:58:01 <KipIngram> I actually have two of those.
14:58:18 --- part: f-a left #forth
15:00:29 <KipIngram> I don't like it as much as I liked my HP 41CV, but it does have one of the "better style" keyboards with that nice click action.
15:00:46 <KipIngram> I just found the HP 41 easier to program.
15:11:35 <KipIngram> The 41 would take multiple keystrokes and use them to build up an "idiomatic operation," and that would then show up as one step in your program.  You could see the result of those keystrokes all at once when your program viewer was pointed at the right place.  
15:12:16 <KipIngram> The 34S, on the other hand, literally treats each keystroke as a step.  So you wind up with a lot more steps and you can only see one of them at a time on the screen.  So it's just a lot harder to keep your program in mind somehow.
15:13:58 <KipIngram> Hey siraben, can you post that link to your Forth again please?
15:14:32 <KipIngram> The TI-84 Forth, I mean.
15:14:51 <remexre> I think https://github.com/siraben/ti84-forth
15:15:46 <KipIngram> Thanks!
15:20:41 --- join: dave0 joined #forth
15:23:02 <dave0> maw
15:23:30 <lispmacs[work]> what does maw mean?
15:24:24 <cmtptr> it's the fourth boss in jedi knight
15:24:50 <cmtptr> er, third i guess.  the fourth dark jedi, but you fight two of them at once so i guess they count as one boss
15:26:22 <lispmacs[work]> did that somehow become a greeting in pop culture?
15:28:17 <cmtptr> yup, where have you been?
15:31:35 <lispmacs[work]> somewhere not playing star wars games
15:31:47 <cmtptr> ohoho this guy
15:33:56 <cmtptr> what sort of games were you playing, then?
15:34:53 <KipIngram> :-)
15:37:21 <lispmacs[work]> in the past few years I have played freeciv, warzone2100, freeorion, pioneer, and a few other similar free software games. But I have beat them all and currently don't have any gaming interests
15:37:50 <lispmacs[work]> what i do for fun currently is work on a FlashForth programming project
15:38:22 <cmtptr> i just recently started playing rainbow six 3 again
15:38:31 <cmtptr> i hadn't touched it since high school
15:38:48 <cmtptr> great game
15:39:15 <cmtptr> first two are probably good too, and it's been even longer since i've played either of those, but good luck getting them to run on a modern pc
17:02:12 --- quit: dave0 (Quit: dave's not here)
17:24:53 <KipIngram> Forth For Fun - I like it.
17:38:13 --- join: logand`` joined #forth
17:39:44 --- quit: logand` (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
17:47:22 --- join: LispSporks joined #forth
18:35:27 <siraben> remexre: was the factorial program provable?
18:38:14 <remexre> Got distracted trying to package plf for nix :p didn't out much time into it
18:48:52 --- join: boru` joined #forth
18:48:55 --- quit: boru (Disconnected by services)
18:48:57 --- nick: boru` -> boru
18:53:10 --- quit: actuallybatman (*.net *.split)
18:53:10 --- quit: remexre (*.net *.split)
18:54:20 --- join: actuallybatman joined #forth
18:54:20 --- join: remexre joined #forth
19:02:58 <siraben> remexre: oh nice, didn't know you also use Nix :)
19:10:26 <MrMobius> KipIngram, thought it was kind of cool but didnt like the keyboard stickers
19:10:43 <MrMobius> one old guy showed a picture at the conference of how he had worn the ink completely off most of his stickers
19:11:21 <KipIngram> Wow.  I guess I haven't used mine that much - they still look good.
19:11:40 <MrMobius> the cool thing about the 34S is that an HP engineer got permission to give skeleton code to the community so they had a starting point
19:11:55 <KipIngram> That is cool.
19:20:51 --- join: dave0 joined #forth
19:23:42 --- quit: LispSporks (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
19:30:51 <KipIngram> Ok, compiler is switching back and forth between interpret and compile, with ] and [ now.
19:31:12 <KipIngram> I have it set up so when interpreting the prompt is the usual ok
19:31:18 <KipIngram> When compiling it's ...
19:31:24 <KipIngram> "more please..."
19:31:45 <KipIngram> This works:
19:31:51 <KipIngram> 65 ] [ emit 
19:31:59 <KipIngram> But something's off with
19:32:04 <KipIngram> 65 ] 10 [ emit
19:32:13 <KipIngram> probably have something left on the stack that shouldn't be.
19:32:18 <KipIngram> Shouldn't be too hard to find.
19:33:04 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Remote host closed the connection)
19:33:34 --- quit: sts-q (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
19:37:42 <KipIngram> It's responding to the immediate bit properly; it executes the null even in compile mode.
19:39:17 <KipIngram> Yeah - the number compile bath is leaving one item on the stack (per number "compiled")
19:42:36 <KipIngram> Found it.
19:42:42 --- join: sts-q joined #forth
19:44:39 <KipIngram> Ok.  One remaining problem - it's at least moving through "number compile" and leaving the stack right.  Don't know if it's properly compiling numbers yet, but... later.  The problem though is trying to compile a defined word.  Gets a segfault.
20:20:03 --- quit: proteus-guy (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
20:32:17 --- join: proteus-guy joined #forth
20:45:13 --- join: gravicappa joined #forth
21:21:51 --- join: andrei-n joined #forth
21:38:23 --- join: mtsd joined #forth
22:03:43 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
23:43:28 --- quit: mtsd (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
23:55:09 --- quit: actuallybatman (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/21.05.05