ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/22/90)
Category 1, Topic 57
Message 1 Thu Dec 20, 1990
L.LISLE1 [Greg] at 19:21 EST
I Have started looking at the Windows 3.0 documentation and it seems to be a
strictly 'C' environment. Do we care? Windows seems to be a major thrust in
the desktop environment. OTOH, if we are primarily pushing embedded systems
we may not need to worry about GUI's. OTOH, what will our development
environment be in the future?
What say the gurus?
-- Greg Lisle, P.E.
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/22/90)
Category 1, Topic 57 Message 2 Thu Dec 20, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 22:48 EST Greg, I also need to start looking at the Windowed environments. In today's market, producing something that has a TTY user interface is senseless. The Mac, Windows 3, OS/2 and UNIX w/ X WINDOWS all use the windows concepts and are what users want to use. Yes, we still write embedded systems, but we also sell complete solutions which include user interfaces. If the customer wants windows you have to give them to him. How far have you gotten into the Windows 3 documentation so far? Have you gotten yourself the Software Development Kit? I've look briefly at them and they do seem very slanted toward C. I'm hoping that it is possible to write pure MASM programs for Windows, but I haven't figured out how yet. I haven't tried very hard yet though, so anything is still possible. I'll try to keep you informed and maybe we can get some others to tell us what they know. Has anyone out there made a pure MASM Windows App? DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/28/90)
Date: 12-20-90 (09:39) Number: 640 of 656 (Echo) To: L.LISLE1 [GREG] Refer#: 619 From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO Subj: MS WINDOWS 3.0 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) >I have started looking at the Windows 3.0 documentation and it >seems to be a strictly C environment... It is perfectly feasible to bring up a Forth in the Windows environment. The API is based on stack parameter passing and far calls, like the OS/2 API, and this is actually extremely convenient for implementation of Forth. LMI is currently developing a Win 3 version of Forth and will be selling this in 2Q91. (We previously brought up a version of Forth for Win 1.03 but never sold it because the memory problems of Win version 1 imposed too big of a performance hit). NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530 <<<>>> ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/28/90)
Date: 12-23-90 (17:35) Number: 667 of 674
To: RAY DUNCAN Refer#: 640
From: DENNIS MCCUNNEY Read: NO
Subj: MS WINDOWS 3.0 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
RD3 Forth. LMI is currently developing a Win 3 version of Forth and
RD3 will be selling this in 2Q91. (We previously brought up a
RD3 version of Forth for Win 1.03 but never sold it because the
RD3 memory problems of Win version 1 imposed too big of a
RD3 performance hit).
Were you able to use any of what you had developed for Win 1.03 in
the Win 3.0 development, or did you have to start over from scratch?
-> MegaMail v2.01 #0:12/23/1990 - R/O Capable - Route to ->RUNNINGB
PCRelay:RUNNINGB -> #3 RelayNet (tm)
4.10 Running Board 2126541349/DS/2125191791/HST/
<<<>>>
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author
using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/28/90)
Date: 12-2390 (0922) Number: 67 of 68 To: RAY DUNCAN Refer#: 640 From: STEVE PALINCAR Read NO Subj: MS WINDOWS 3.0 Sttus: PBLICMESSAG Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) [Sorry about the readability here. This is the way I got it. -dwp] Isn't there apt to be a major documentation hassle? From what I've rad (ostly n PCMagazie) vrtuall everything written about Windows programming is all geard toward C -- C nomnclatue, Cexampls, ec. Ihave asoluely nodoub Forthcan run under Windows (after all isn't Ator,one f th majorprogramming languages available for windows at heart built on a frth ore?) ut hw is oe tomake te metal translation from all tose chickntraks int forh? Wold oe need the Microsoft SDK for Windows (at whatever exorbitant price they're asking forit tody) b requied i additon t LMI dcumetation? PCRelay:DCINFO -> 16 MtroLin (tm Interational Network 410 DC Info Exchange MetroLink International ub <<<>>> ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/29/90)
Date: 12-25-90 (18:52) Number: 683 of 686 (Echo) To: DENNIS MCCUNNEY Refer#: 667 From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO Subj: MS WINDOWS 3.0 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) >were you able to use any of what you had developed for Win 1.03 >in the Win 3 development, or did you have to start over from scratch There was really very little that could be recovered from the Win 1.03 implementation. The protected mode environment of Win 3 and the new multi-line controls simplify the Win 3 implementation considerably (in the Win 1.03 we had to change the whole kernel because of real mode Windows 1.03's demand that BP always point to a C-like stack frame). In addition, I've gained a lot of experience with GUI environments and applications since I did the Win 1.03 version and I think I can make a much better programming environment than I did the first time. NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530 <<<>>> ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/29/90)
Date: 12-26-90 (10:58) Number: 687 of 698 (Echo)
To: STEVE PALINCSAR Refer#: 675
From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO
Subj: MS WINDOWS 3.0 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
>how is one to make the mental translation from all those C
chickentracks into Forth
For one, the stackbased nature of the Windows API is very Forth-like.
If you look at the C function prototypes in the Win documentation, and
simply think of the things inside the parenthesis of the prototype as a
set of arguments to be pushed onto the stack from left to right, then
you have the Forth interface. We have a lot of experience with this
from our OS/2 version of FORTH (which we have been selling from several
years) and we find that the fact that the official documentation is
C-oriented turns out not to be a hindrance.
Anyway, we will export very high level words within the Forth which will
create windows, handle windows messages, etc. in a natural manner. The
user will not have to diddle with the low-level Windows interface stuff
at all if he doesn't want to.
NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530
<<<>>>
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author
using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/29/90)
Date: 12-26-90 (11:02) Number: 688 of 698 (Echo) To: STEVE PALINCSAR Refer#: 675 From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO Subj: MS WINDOWS 3.0 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) >Would one need the Microsoft SDK for Windows in addition to >the LMI documentation No. However, the Windows programming manuals would be handy if you don't want to be limited in your use of the Windows API. The official Microsoft Windows manuals can be purchased in any technical bookstore under the Microsoft Press imprint, they contain exactly the same documentation as is provided in the SDK. The 3 manuals are: Windows Guide to Programming ISBN 1-55615-308-2 $29.95 Windows Programming Tools ISBN 1-55615-310-4 $24.95 Windows Programmer's Ref. ISBN 1-55615-309-0 $39.95 The Guide to Programming and Programmer's Ref are critical. The Programming Tools book is helpful but not really necessary. NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530 <<<>>> ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (03/04/91)
Date: 02-25-91 (20:17) Number: 1335 of 1349 (Echo) To: RAY DUNCAN Refer#: NONE From: BLAKE CHAPMAN Read: 02-25-91 (22:36) Subj: WINDOWS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) In an article in the latest issue of Computer Language the author says that LMI is planning to release a Forth for Windows in the next few months. My boss asked me to ask you about it because he is possibly interested in putting our application under MS Windows. Is this FORTH that you are developing to run under Windows going to run in 32 bit code and data segments like your Phar Lap version of FORTH ? I personally would prefer to put our application under Motif and X windows, like Deskview/X, but I am not the boss. However, since Deskview/X supports Phar Lap applications I would guess that your 386 FORTH on Phar Lap will run under Deskview/X. Do you think so ? Although a programmer would need to write calls to the Deskview API. NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530 <<<>>> ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (04/14/91)
Category 1, Topic 57 Message 12 Fri Apr 12, 1991 G.LEFAVE [Gene] at 06:52 CDT I just tried polyFORTH under windows in protected mode on a 33 MHZ 486. I ran the following timing tests: : tt 1000000 0 DO I DROP LOOP ; 1700 milliseconds. : tt 1000 0 DO I BLOCK DROP LOOP ; 2300 milliseconds This last test requires lots of switches from protected mode to real mode. This makes it slightly better then twice as fast as a 33 MHz 386. Should be fast enough for just about anything. ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (04/14/91)
Category 1, Topic 57
Message 13 Fri Apr 12, 1991
D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 22:26 EDT
That is good to hear Gene. I will pass your numbers on to Stephen.
We are noticing another worrysome problem under Windows though. Any I/O is
getting trapped by the OS and causing sever delays. I don't have the number
handy but I now know why 9600 baud seems to be about as good as most Windows
comm programs can do. Does anyone out there know how to convince Windows or
the DPMI driver that I/O to specific ports does not need to be trapped? I
know there are some flags that can be set in the segment descriptor table, but
there doesn't seem to be any clean way to get at them. Does anyone have any
experience in doing this?
{B-{)> DaR
-----
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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (04/19/91)
Category 1, Topic 57
Message 16 Thu Apr 18, 1991
D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 21:19 EDT
Re: oneel@heawk1.rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel )
Subject: Forth and Windows 3.0
Stay tuned Bruce, Ray Duncan has said that he was working on it, and I'm sure
the other vendors will follow eventually. As for pd, well some of us are
going to have to recoup our investment in the learning curve before we start
giving things away. There are some working on it, but the investment appears
to be pretty high.
You want the results for free? {B-{)> DaR
Re: RAY DUNCAN
> To get rid of hardware virtualization, run Win 3.0 in Standard
> Mode.
uugh! But we need the DPMI services which are only available under Enhanced
Mode. Isn't there any way to modify the Segment Descriptor Table to let us
have some of the I/O ports without trapping them?
Thanks for the reply anyways! {B-{)> DaR
-----
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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (04/24/91)
Category 1, Topic 57 Message 17 Tue Apr 23, 1991 G.LEFAVE [Gene] at 08:31 CDT Dennis, I run my own comm program based on an old pf model, and it runs at 19.2K baud reliably. Although, when running in a window the screen is updated sporadically. My experience is mixed. Some comm programs have a problem and some don't. I have not found any problems at all when running "exclusive" mode. Polling (Crosstalk) tasks are affected a lot when running in background. I have not been able to figure out what windows is doing with serial ports. But I have tried removing the COMM stuf from the .ini files with apparently no change in behavior. Could the problem be a mode switch? The DPMI mode switch takes a couple 100 us, which would prevent operation above 9.6 K baud. My current problem is trying to trap the Break Interrupt. What ought to be trivial is turning into a real project. Gene ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (04/24/91)
Category 1, Topic 57 Message 18 Tue Apr 23, 1991 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 22:12 EDT Re: G.LEFAVE [Gene] > I run my own comm program based on an old pf model, and it runs > at 19.2K baud reliably. Using DPMI int calls? > The DPMI mode switch takes a couple 100 us, which would prevent > operation above 9.6 K baud. We belive that is what the problem is, but there is a way to tell the 386 to not trap on a selected set of I/O ports. We've yet to figure out how to get DPMI or Windows to do it. > My current problem is trying to trap the Break Interrupt. What > ought to be trivial is turning into a real project. I really would appreceate hearing how you do on that one. It has me totally stumped, especially considering what our DOS Break code does. However, I think there is going to have to be a "mode" switch in our thinking here as we work under Windows. "Normal" Forth (or the ones I have the most experience with) only looks at the keyboard when it wants to (i.e. passive). The way that Windows wants you to write code is to let Windows shove messages at you whenever it wants to. Thus, there is always a portion of your code that is looking for something to happen (i.e. active). There is no Break support in Windows, because you always have the mouse to click on the abort button. Making it work, is going to be real fun. Can anyone out there share their experiences in working with this "mind switch"? I'm not sure about Unix, but the Mac does work under this Message Processing architecture. How does this work with Forth's KEY and EXPECT? You're right though Gene, this IS a real project. Is it going to be worth it? {B-{)> DaR ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (04/26/91)
Date: 04-19-91 (17:46) Number: 1962 of 1988 (Echo) To: GARY SMITH Refer#: 1908 From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO Subj: MS WINDOWS 3.0 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) Bruce O'Neel Writes: >How about a Forth that supports Windows applications LMI is currently developing such a Forth for Win 3. We expect to release a preliminary version to Beta testers around the beginning of May and retail release in 4Q91. NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530 <<<>>> ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (04/28/91)
Date: 04-24-91 (08:27) Number: 1989 of 1989 (Echo)
To: DENNIS RUFFER Refer#: 1973
From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO
Subj: MS WINDOWS 3.0 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
-> Can anyone out there share their experiences in working with this
-> "mind switch"? I'm not sure about Unix, but the Mac does work under
-> this Message Processing architecture. How does this work with
-> Forth's KEY and EXPECT?
The Amiga, a fully-multitasking operating system, has a message-
based architecture.
Like many multitasking systems, an Amiga application should
Wait(messages_mask) in between activities.
The trick is that in a GUI you have to set the bits for several
different types of messages and be ready to handle them when they come
in. So even simple words like KEY before they call Wait() have to set
several different bits (keystroke, mouse select, close button, etc) that
indicate what kind of messages they are willing to accept.
Then when a message *does* come, they have to process whatever
message it might be within the range of messages they were willing to
accept.
If you get too frazzled, Dennis, you oughta look at contracting
this out :-)
=jax=
NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth!
<<<>>>
-----
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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/16/91)
Date: 05-05-91 (09:49) Number: 2116 of 2164 (Echo) To: DENNIS RUFFER Refer#: 2071 From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO Subj: MS WINDOWS 3.0 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) I see that you are doing a bunch of mode switching stuff in your DPMI-based Forth. I built a DPMI-based FORTH last year as an experiment (mainly to fiddle around with the DPMI interface) and I wonder if you are aware that the built-in Windows DOS Extender works in both 16- and 32-bit mode. If you just make the initial mode switch telling the DPMI server that you are going to run as a 32-bit app, you don't have to do all this funny 16/32 bit mode switching stuff on the fly just to talk to the DPMI interface and DOS. NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530 <<<>>> ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/16/91)
Date: 05-06-91 (12:28) Number: 2117 of 2164 (Echo) To: RAY DUNCAN Refer#: NONE From: MIKE HALLORAN Read: 05-06-91 (18:21) Subj: ESP FISH WRAPPER Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) As an advertiser and contributor, I assume you have some leverage with Embedded Systems Programming magazine. They seem, ah, confused. I was a charter subscriber; paid for it out of my own pocket. When they went to controlled circulation, I assumed that I would qualify, since ESP is what I do for a living. I even got a note in the mail assuring me that I was doubly qualified, since I subscribe to other M-F rags. A year went by, and I got a letter saying that they had in fact received all the qualification cards I sent in, but they didn't think I was qualified enough to justify a subscription; but if I sent in just one more, they would think about it. I was livid. After calming down, which took several months, I sent a flame to Tyler Sperry on CIS, and got what must be the corporate standard response; none at all. More recently, I left a msg on their bbs, and got a reply(!) from the sysop, saying that they only qualified people a couple times a year, that they were doing it now, and to inquire again if nothing happened in the next month or two. The last issue I got was February 1990, and I have been waiting, a month or two at a time, for another. Is that any way to run a business? NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530 <<<>>> ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/17/91)
Category 1, Topic 19 Message 33 Thu May 16, 1991 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 00:57 EDT Re: RAY DUNCAN > I see that you are doing a bunch of mode switching stuff in your > DPMI-based Forth. The DPMI version does do "translations" when it does DPMI simulated DOS calls, but otherwise it is fairly "sane". I didn't do that one though, and I'm not sure I still totally understand it. The mode switching when it loads (protected to real to protected) is too much for what I'm after. Stephen was aware of the 32-bit app bit from one of your articles (BTW) and the system runs pretty good. However, I'm trying to do it all without DPMI, using just windows calls, and I think I'm getting closer. Today, I was actaully able to let Windows "free" from the shackles I have it in. My first (working) PeekGetTranslateDispatchMessage loop ran (!YEA!). I'm finally into the Forth edit/debug cycle instead of the MASM/MAKE one I've been spending most of my time in. I still crash, but I'm starting to even understand why. I'm using the WINMEM32.DLL stuff that comes with the SDK. Do you know anything about it? I suspect I may have found a bug in it (or insufficient documentation) when it comes to what GetMessage can use. I managed to get around the problem by moving the message in and out of a GlobalAlloc structure because it didn't like the Global16PointerAlloc that I had been trying to use. So, now I can use either method. However, I also found out that Microsoft has no one to answer questions unless you subscribe to Microsoft Online. I'm not ready to do that yet. Do you subscribe to it, or are you one of the ones who answers the questions? Do you know anywhere else that I can find answers to the "really tough" problems? We should talk! DaR BTW, for those "watching" these birth pains, the call that I was trying to make a few messages ago is compiled by MASM using the following: CALL dword ptr Routines[BX] Almost even makes sense: :) ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/25/91)
Category 1, Topic 19 Message 34 Sat May 25, 1991 P.VARN [Paul Varn] at 01:14 PDT I couldn't find another place to post a request for help. I'm trying to learn Forth on the Atari ST. I have the '83 version of Brodie's book but I'm having trouble with starting out. I can't figure out how to create a new file so I can open and edit it. I also can't figure out how to remove or add blocks to a file. The implementations I've tried are: F83.TOS and F65K.TOS. Can anyone suggest a better documented ST Forth to learn from or give me some hints on the ones I've tried to get me over the starting learning curve? Thank you. -Pv- ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/25/91)
Category 1, Topic 19 Message 35 Sat May 25, 1991 P.VARN [Paul Varn] at 01:20 PDT I made a small error in my lat post. Should have been F68K.TOS NOT F65K.TOS. -Pv- ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/25/91)
Category 1, Topic 19 Message 36 Sat May 25, 1991 ELLIOTT.C at 08:30 EDT Paul Varn, Did you try the TOP or IND commands? If there's a better place to put this exchange I'll find it, or STArt a new topic in CATegory 1 or 7, (which you could have done). In the meantime - I share your consternation: it's been so long since I actually created a file of Forth source code that I had to try to read up too. Way back when faced with the same problem I may have created a file by way of the OS (MSDOS) and then openned it in Forth to add blocks with MORE. I just spent a few minutes poking around (could have started with WORDS but didn't) and came up with n CREATE-FILE <name>. "n" is the number of blocks you feel like starting with. ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/08/91)
Date: 06-04-91 (18:09) Number: 101 of 102 (Echo) To: ALL Refer#: NONE From: RAY DUNCAN Read: (N/A) Subj: FORTH FOR WINDOWS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) We are getting very close to the release of the first beta version of LMI's Forth for Windows. We will be opening up a special conference on the LMI Forth Board for WinForth beta testers, and we will post updates to the executable file in this conference very frequently (probably every 2 or 3 days for several months). WinForth beta testers must be registered users of one of LMI's UR/FORTH products and must be prepared for a great deal of aggravation. The Forth system is still changing rapidly as we build the user interface and evolve a reasonable word set for window creation and management. We still have a great deal of work to do in optimization of display and so on, and after that we expect to make some radical changes to source code management as well. If you wish to be a WinForth beta tester, leave a message on the LMI Forth Board and you will be authorized for the conference as soon as it opens up next week. NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530 <<<>>> ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp