HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jax@well.sf.ca.us (Jack J. Woehr)
Subject: Re: CREATE .. DOES>
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:05:49 GMT

In <1992Oct14.150631.73@wronz.org.nz> mentink@wronz.org.nz writes:


>        Can anyone HELP please.

>	I would appreciate any source ( forth or asm ) for the
>	CREATE .. DOES> set of words for eforth or F83.

	If you're having trouble, maybe it's because you have
to think about what CREATE .. DOES> does.

	CREATE creates a word that points to the next free location
in data space. That data space may be the same space as the dictionary,
as in FIG Forth and many versions of F83, or it may be distant. CREATE
does this in threaded Forth by laying down the execution engine for
something similar to VARIABLE and setting its pointer to this
data space location, but not alloting.


	DOES> is a magic dictionary hack in threaded systems.

	DOES> figures out where the last CREATE child is .. and goes back in
the dictionary and rewrites this child's execution engine pointer in the CFA
to point to the code laid down at the time the defining word itself was
defined with CREATE .. DOES> in it.

	This code laid down at compile time by DOES> in the original defining
word commences with a DOES>-supplied machine level code body to find the
data pointer of the CREATE-created word, since the DOES> code is going to
presume that that pointer is on the stack upon the execution of the child of
this CREATE .. DOES> defining word.

Following that code is a return to high-level Forth and a body of code laid
down when you used DOES> in defining the original defining word.
-- 
 # jax@well.{UUCP,sf.ca.us}  # #  Member  # # Vice President,       #
 # du!isis!koscej!jax        # # X3J14 TC # #  Forth Interest Group #
 # JAX on GEnie              # # for ANS  # #   P.O. Box 8231       #
 # SYSOP RCFB (303) 278-0364 # #  Forth   # #    San Jose CA 95155  #
From: MAT@PLTUMK11.BITNET (Maciej Woloszyk)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Who invented RPN ?
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:16:09 GMT
Reply-To: FIGI-L%BRUSPVM.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The Internet
X-Unparsable-Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:03:02 CET

Hello everybody,

      I've just started my work with NET, and i've found Peter J Knaggs
letter and reply for it. I'm Pole and I want to tell that name of RPN
inventor is Lukasiewicz, but there are only overcrossed L in his name
(L crossed with /).

        Maciej Woloszyk.

=======================================================================
Ps. Is there anyone who can help me find detailed information about
FORTH words definitions (full FORTH specification) because I want to
write FORTH for my computer (it's SAM Coupe with Z-80 CPU).
=======================================================================
PPs. Sorry for my poor English.
=======================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: ian@bvsd.co.edu (Ian Nelson)
Subject: Re: Forth vs C
Organization: Boulder Valley School District
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:38:20 GMT

ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes:

>platforms and many enhancements, I can certainly testify that Forth is
>extremely maintainable.
>Federal Express has a group of about 15 programmers in Colorado Springs
>maintaining both Forth and C programs (Forth since 1986).  They have told me
>they find the Forth programs far easier to maintain and to test than the C
>programs, due to the modularity, flexibility and overall simplicity.

Do they do any C++ maintaining?  Or is it all procedural programming?  
-- 
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0
mQBYAiqtYqEAAAECWKssWKoVxXAu9S0A/rKepT1GT+PJjv+lHh1LyIYwI9gzfnoq
ydwdKIJ81qIDgkMAliSIOWZiGSYbXszmmspRDenRARe15NOEM36pGQAFE7ABh7Qc
From: dmiller@im.lcs.mit.edu (Dick and Jill Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Who invented RPN?
Date: 13 Oct 1992 09:02:30 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

 
Peter Knaggs asks, "Who invented RPN?":
> As I remember, some time ago someone posted a message giving the name of
> the Polish mathematician who reputedly invented the post-fix notation
> (Revise Polish Notation).
> 
> Would it be possible for someone to repost this (with accents if possible)
> as I would like to include the name in some documentation I am writing.
 
I quote from our own MMSFORTH Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 4, September 1980, 
page 4 (copyright 1980 by MMS):
 
                        ON REVERSE POLISH NOTATION    
 
   'RPN stands for "reverse Polish notation" and the "Polish" refers to Jan 
   Lukasiewicz (1878-1956), a great Polish logician and mathematician.  
   "Polish" is easier to pronounce than "Lukasiewicz" (wu-ka-sha'-vich) and 
   "reverse Polish" is much easier to pronounce than "Zciweisakul".'
      -From "Algorithms for RPN Calculators", by John A. Ball, John Wiley & 
   Sons, New York, 1978.  MMS recommends this book as a sounce of many 
   mathematic algorithms, optimized for RPN users.
 
In addition to the above, I note that while RPN or post-fix notation was 
popularized effectively by Hewlett-Packard, Burroughs computers offered it 
earlier, as did some Corvus hand calculators.
 
--Dick Miller
 
A. Richard & Jill A. Miller            | Miller Microcomputer Services |
InterNet: dmiller@im.lcs.mit.edu       | 61 Lake Shore Road            |
Voice: 508/653-6136, 9am-9pm EasternTZ | Natick, MA 01760-2099, USA    | 
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: mikc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mike Coughlin)
Subject: Re: polyFORTH and other Forth Inc. products
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 19:55:13 GMT

In article <4108.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> 
:ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes:
:Message 19        Fri Oct 09, 1992
:E.RATHER [Elizabeth]         at 01:13 EDT
: 
:"Target Compiler" has been a registered trademark of FORTH, inc. since 1978. 
:We don't aggressively protect it, but we would appreciate other folks using
:other terms.  "Cross compiler" seems a perfectly adequate and widely
:understood term .
   It seems to me that a few definitions of the terms used for Forth 
cross-compilation would be a welcome addition to the pending ANSI Forth
standard.

Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Martin Ertl)
Subject: Re: Who invented RPN ?
Organization: Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:16:46 GMT

In article <9210100750.AA13982@nettlerash.berkeley.edu>, cmr02@SCM.TEES-POLY.AC.UK (Peter J Knaggs) writes:
|> As I remember, some time ago someone posted a message giving the name of
|> the Polish mathematician who reputedly invented the post-fix notation
|> (Revise Polish Notation).

It's "Reverse Polish Notation", so he actually invented prefix
notation.

Jan {\L}ukasiewicz (1878-1956)

(If you don't know LaTeX, \L is a letter that looks like "L"
overstriked with "/")

According to F.L.Bauer, H.W"ossner, ``Algorithmische Sprqache und
Programmentwicklung'', he introduced them in 1929 (``Elementy logiki
matematycznej''). There seems to be an English translation: ``Elements
of Matemathical Logic'', Pergamomn Press, Oxford, 1963.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl                    Some things have to be seen to be believed
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: FORTH & OS/2
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:01:41 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 2,  Topic 6
Message 21        Thu Oct 08, 1992
ELLIOTT.C                    at 14:06 EDT
 
 -----via CRS Premium Bulletin Board - USR Dual Standard 16.8K
 (416) 629-7000
 Date: 10-05-92 (22:00)
   To: MIKE WAROT
 From: JACK WOEHR
 Subj: 32-BIT OS/2 FORTH TEXT MD


         Mike, thanx for uploading FORTH001.ZIP, a 32-bit
 shareware Forth for OS/2 full screen text mode.

                 =jax=

 NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for
 Forth! ---
  * The GrapeVine/Ferret Face BBS * NLR,ARK * 501-753-8121 DS *
  * PostLink(tm) v1.02  GRAPEVINE (#318) : RelayNet(tm) Hub

 PCRelay:RUNNINGA -> #2 RelayNet (tm)
 4.11                The Running Board * 301 229-5342 * MD

 Date: 10-07-92 (19:00)

   To: JACK WOEHR

 From: JIM WENZEL

 Subj: 32-BIT OS/2 FORTH TEXT MD


 Jack Woehr *         Mike,  thanx for  uploading FORTH001.ZIP,
 a 32-bit shareware Forth for OS/2 full screen text mode.
                                  = = =

   Jack,.. Would you mind shooting us a copy of it on your next
 mailrun? ---
  * SM 1.06 A0059 * Apathy Error:  Don't Bother Striking Any Key
  * The GrapeVine/Ferret Face BBS * NLR,ARK * 501-753-8121 DS *
  * PostLink(tm) v1.02  GRAPEVINE (#318) : RelayNet(tm) Hub

 PCRelay:RUNNINGA -> #2 RelayNet (tm)
 4.11                The Running Board * 301 229-5342 * MD


-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: "elliott chapin" <elliott.chapin@canrem.com>
Subject: contract postion (forth)
Reply-To: "elliott chapin" <elliott.chapin@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:45:11 EST

TO: rshapiro@telerama.pgh.pa.us

I'm interested.  Right now I'm between stages of enhancing a
pre-existing Forth-based industrial system here in Toronto.

      Elliott Chapin
      24 Monteith St.
      Toronto, Ont.      (416) 921-9560
      M4Y 1K7            elliott.chapin@canrem.com


      OBJECTIVE

      Computer programming position or contract, or related work.


      GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS

            - a broad multidisciplinary background;
            - imagination, persistence and an appetite for problems;
            - informal acquaintance with computers going back to the
                 early 1960s.


      COMPUTER LANGUAGES, APPLICATIONS S/W

            - Now writing for MSDOS environments, using MS Quickbasic,
              L.O.V.E. Forth and A86 assembler.
            - Have also used APL, Fortran, 8085 machine.
            - Learning C.
            - Have used dBASE IV, AsEasy (Lotus 1-2-3 clone),
              Autosketch, various WPs, a little Quark Xpress, etc.

      EXPERIENCE

      Contract programmer    PCL Industrial Systems Inc.
                                                    June 1992 - present

      Presented a paper at the 1992 Rochester Forth Conference;
      one of the sponsors of this conference was NASA.
                                                              June 1992

      Editorial corrections inputter, math advisor & formatter
                             Dundurn Press    October 1991 - March 1992

      Mr. Mom
                                               September 1990 - present

      Assistant SysOp        Forth RoundTable on GEnie (BBS run by
                             General Electric Information Services)
                                                 January 1990 - present

      Work in the Arts (principally music)
                                                         1968 - present

      Various teaching positions (mostly mathematics)
                                                            1965 - 1972


      EDUCATION

      MA in mathematics       Columbia University          1966
      BA in mathematics       Princeton University         1964


      RECREATION

      Most of the above, plus Tai-Chi Chu'an.


      CURRENT STATUS

      Married, with two children; available for work - short-term,
      long-term, full-time, telecommuting or some travel all OK.


      REFERENCES

      Available on request.

Elliott Chapin
---
  DeLuxe 1.12 #4315  elliott.chapin@canrem.com
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Martin Ertl)
Subject: Re: locals (was: Floating Point)
Organization: Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 11:13:12 GMT

In article <Bw6nK6.H53.1@cs.cmu.edu>, dwp+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug Philips) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct15.141124.2771@email.tuwien.ac.at>
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Martin Ertl) writes:
[I pointed out problems with using EVALUATE]
|> I agree with what you say, but not with your conclusion.  I have never
|> thought of EVALUATE as being the solution to the kind of problem you are
|> examining. 

Well, it just makes me nervous that many questions on how to do
something in ANSI Forth have been answered with solutions involving
"EVALUATE". These solutions have to be examined: If they inherit the
problems of "EVALUATE", the solutions are not satisfactory, because
they cannot be applied in a modular way.

|> It just isn't, and for the reasons you explain. [...]

I see that I have been less than clear: The parser generator takes the
rule

(( factor (( "*" factor {{ * }}
          || "/" factor {{ / }}
          )) **
)) <- term ( -- n )

and generates something like

: parse-term ( -- n)
 parse-factor
 BEGIN
   ... WHILE
   ... IF
     parse-"*" parse-factor *
   ELSE
     parse-"/" parse-factor /
   ENDIF
 REPEAT ;

This definition is not generated as text. Instead, it is compiled
directly using the wonderful Forth words "POSTPONE", "COMPILE," etc.
(and the parse-... words are in fact anonymous).

Now what I would like is a way to use local variables in a rule. These
local variables would then be compiled to local variables in the
parse-... colon definitions. This cannot be done with POSTPONE. This
is not a shortcoming of POSTPONE or of locals; It is a result of the
incompatibility of the concepts. So the only solution I can come up
with is using EVALUATE, which means the parser generator would inherit
"EVALUATE"s problems.

|> +Hmm, looking into BASIS 15, section B.17, I see two examples of doing
|> 
|> As others have already said, but I shall repeat:
|> 	BASIS 15  is *very* out of date.  DO NOT USE IT.
|> 	Use the latest dpAns!

As I have already said: I will not pay $65 for wastepaper (and neither
will my department).

So, if my comments don't apply to the current dpANS, point it out. If
they still apply, what's your point?

BTW, what's the status of electronic availability of the dpANS?

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl                    Some things have to be seen to be believed
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
From: dwp+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: locals (was: Floating Point)
Summary: something salient, shortly stated, sadly seldom satoric
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:43:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bw7y98.MJ0.1
Organization: EIEI-U

In article <1992Oct16.111312.5736@email.tuwien.ac.at>,
	anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Martin Ertl) writes:
+Well, it just makes me nervous that many questions on how to do
+something in ANSI Forth have been answered with solutions involving
+"EVALUATE". These solutions have to be examined: If they inherit the
+problems of "EVALUATE", the solutions are not satisfactory, because
+they cannot be applied in a modular way.

I apologize for being less than clear myself.  I never intended to defend,
or to imply that I was defending, the use of EVALUATE as a solution when
it is clearly not the satifactory way.  I forgot the larger context
your message was in.  It may also be that this is the first time that
someone has pointed to a very concrete example of EVALUATE 's difficulties
that has registered with me.

[example elided.  -dwp]
+Now what I would like is a way to use local variables in a rule. These
+local variables would then be compiled to local variables in the
+parse-... colon definitions. This cannot be done with POSTPONE. This
+is not a shortcoming of POSTPONE or of locals; It is a result of the
+incompatibility of the concepts. So the only solution I can come up
+with is using EVALUATE, which means the parser generator would inherit
+"EVALUATE"s problems.

I agree with that.  I think that in fact what you are pointing out is not
so much a problem with POSTPONE, as I consider POSTPONE to be a very
limited and well defined word, and I am willing to accept its limitations.
I think what you are actually pointing out is a problem with LOCALS .
But this is not a new problem, just a new face on an old problem.  The old
problem is the tendency to write FORTH words that parse from the input
stream and not provide similar words that take data from the stack.  If I
understand your example properly (and perhaps I am still missing subtle
aspects of it), the problem is really that you cannot create or access locals 
except by having them read in the input stream (i.e. require the EVALUATE
solution).  One way to "get around" this problem might to be to provide
every production with a predefined group of locals (L0 L1 L2 ... L10)
and force the user to use those.  Not very mnemonic though, and has other
problems too.

-Doug
-- 
---
email to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us is preferred to From: address but both work.
From: cmr02@SCM.TEES.AC.UK (Peter J Knaggs)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Z-80 Forth
Date: 16 Oct 92 10:09:36 GMT
Reply-To: FIGI-L%BRUSPVM.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The Internet

Maciej,

> Is there anyone who can help me find detailed information about FORTH
> words definitions (full FORTH specification) because I want to write
> FORTH for my computer (it's SAM Coupe with Z-80 CPU).

The first thing to say is why reinvent the wheel.  If you really do want to
do this, then I suggest that you get a copy of the standard.  Which
standard you chose is up to you:

	a)	ANS X3/X3J14 Basis Document or the Draft ANSI Standard.
	b)	Forth 83-Standard
	c)	Forth 79-Standard

There are many arguments over which standard is better.  I do not intend
to delve into this argument, thus I will simply say take your pick.

Dependent on your hardware you may be able to get a currently working copy.
If you send me a copy of your disk format, I will almost certainly be able
to write it.  Failing that you can purchase a copy of the source code for
fig-forth (in Z80 or 8080).

You can order these documents from FIG (or FIGUK) however, I would suggest
you join the group first.  The addresses are:

Forth Interest Group,			Forth Interest Group (UK),
PO Box 8231,				5a Riverfield Road,
San Jose, CA				Staines,
95155					Middlesex.
USA					U.K.

Note that FIGUK has many European members.

--
Peter J. Knaggs.       School of Computing and Maths, University of Teesside,
pjk @ scm.tees.ac.uk   Middlesbrough, Cleveland, England.    +44 (642) 342673
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        C makes you think that C is the world's greatest language.
    Forth makes you think that you're the world's greatest programmer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Strings
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:57:43 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 3,  Topic 8
Message 22        Sun Oct 11, 1992
E.RATHER [Elizabeth]         at 22:01 EDT
 
Regarding string comparisons in Forth...  most implementations contain some
string comparison primitives, even though they may not be mentioned in the
FORTH-83 standard.  ANS Forth has added some, based on a survey of what is
available in most systems.  Check with your supplier.  If your implementation
is too limited, look at alternatives.  We offer a version of polyFORTH for
VAX/VMS that includes several, as well as some data base tools that would help
with your address book.  For more info, call 1-800-55FORTH and ask for Randy.

Good luck!
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Forth vs C
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:01:43 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 2,  Topic 14
Message 51        Fri Oct 09, 1992
E.RATHER [Elizabeth]         at 01:10 EDT
 
Having worked in Forth for 20 years, always in environments in which I was
required to read other folks code and manage multiple programmers on a project
in which all are required to read each others' code, and having run a company
which has maintained the same applications for 15+ years through upgrades, new
platforms and many enhancements, I can certainly testify that Forth is
extremely maintainable.

What is required is exactly the same as is required to write maintainable code
in any other language:  good names, clear & consistent formatting, and
adherance to the basic principles of structured programming.

Forth aids in the process by encouraging extreme modularity and appropriate
structures as advocated by the gurus of computer science since the early 70's.

Federal Express has a group of about 15 programmers in Colorado Springs
maintaining both Forth and C programs (Forth since 1986).  They have told me
they find the Forth programs far easier to maintain and to test than the C
programs, due to the modularity, flexibility and overall simplicity.

-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: An Open ANSI Forth Implementation
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:01:53 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 10,  Topic 41
Message 95        Fri Oct 09, 1992
E.RATHER [Elizabeth]         at 01:42 EDT
 
X3J14 has not met since the close of the recent review period. Our next
meeting is next week, 10/13-17, at NASA, Greenbelt MD. Visitors are
encouraged.  I will report at the end of that mtng.

By the way, we thoroughly sympathize with your concern over the cost of
prolonging this process.  Meetings cost us $100s to $1000s to attend, not
counting lost work hrs.  We will do almost anything to conclude it at this
point, *short* of publishing a badly flawed standard.

We did receive 15 comments, about half what came in before.
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: spelk@cix.compulink.co.uk (MPE Ltd)
Subject: Floating Point
Reply-To: spelk@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:39:41 +0000


This thread on floating point seems to be more about "how do
I grab a few cells for a short time". Looking at the syntax
usually proposed for such objects, I get the impression that
most users want these objects to be in memory space, NOT in
stack space.

If this is true, the use of a frame stack (just like C or Pascal)
should be perfectly acceptable. To avoid multiple frame
stacks in main memory, allocation could be from a heap.
There are lessons to be learnt from other languages which already
have long implementation histories.

Stephen Pelc

EuroForth Conference - 23-25 October 1992 - Some great papers on
native code compilation, plus Forth on pen computers, and 4-bit
stack machines. Book now:
mpe@cix.compulink.co.uk
tel: +44 703 631441   fax: +44 703 339691
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth