ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (04/09/90)
Category 10, Topic 14
Message 16 Sat Apr 07, 1990
R.BERKEY [Robert] at 19:33 PDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI X3J14 Forth Technical Proposal Page 1 of 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: ACQUIRE
Related Proposals:
Keyword(s): vocabularies, wordlists Proposal (X)
Forth Word(s): FORTH WORDLIST Comment ( )
------------------
Abstract:
Add ACQUIRE to the Wordlist wordset.
------------------
Discussion:
Without the ability to search individual wordlists, programs
effectively can only use wordlists for being compiled. This one
element has a broad range of application, from implementing the
standard from within the standard, to self-analyzing programs, to
avoiding complications involving variables, to object oriented
programming. Without this one element, implementing a compiler or
an interpreter must be done from scratch.
By inference, any system with wordlists can implement this word.
The flag input to ACQUIRE has this purpose: the output from FIND
or an ACQUIRE can be passed into an ACQUIRE . This avoids complex
and relatively inefficient control structures for multiple
wordlist searches.
References: Berkey, "Four Vocabulary Tools", 1984 Rochester Forth
Applications Conference Proceedings.
The text below follows that in FIND .
-------------------
Proposal:
Add to the WORDLIST word set:
ACQUIRE ( addr1 flag wl-token -- addr1 0 ) -or-
( addr1 flag wl-token -- w 1 ) -or-
( addr1 flag wl-token -- w -1 )
wl-token is the execution token of a wordlist. If flag is false,
return addr1, and 0. Otherwise, find the Forth word named in
counted string at addr1. If the word is not found, return addr1,
and 0. If the word is found, return the execution token w; if the
word is immediate, return 1, otherwise return -1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: Robert Berkey Date: 90-04-07
Address: 47000 Warm Springs Blvd. #253 Ph: (415) 659-1334
Fremont, CA 94539 Msgs: GEnie, R.BERKEY
ANSI X3J14 Forth Standards Committee
111 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 300, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (08/16/90)
Date: 08-13-90 (16:55) Number: 3646 (Echo) To: BRAD PEPERS Refer#: NONE From: CHRIS WATERS Read: NO Subj: LATEST Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Ah, we seem to be having troubles somewhere in the net with at-signs. This problem is related, I think, to a particular brand of BBS, PCBoard, used by many nodes on at least two of the networks here. Note to all Forth users. PCBoard has real problems with this character, and cannot be recommended to Forthers. For this message, I'll use ... er, '&' to represent the at-sign. Sorry if this is confusing. I'm currently in the middle of a discussion (read: fight) with the network administration about this issue. BP:What is the 'proper' defn of LATEST? 3 3 1) : LATEST CONTEXT & & ; 3 or 2) : LATEST CURRENT & & ; TMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Brad, I'm glad you put 'proper' in quotes. There are good reasons for the fact that LATEST has not been part of any standard since figForth. Consider this definition: VOCABULARY USELESS USELESS DEFINITIONS : WASTE ... ; FORTH DEFINITIONS IMMEDIATE Depending on how your Forth is implemented, this will either make WASTE an IMMEDIATE word, or will make most recent definition in FORTH immediate. A strict reading of the 79- or 83-standards allows only the former, but if IMMEDIATE uses LATEST, a common method of implementation, and LATEST is defined by either of your methods above, the latter will take place. For this reason, many systems, including all I have implemented, use a user variable, LAST, to point to the most recently defined word in any vocabulary. I don't even include LATEST in my Forths, as LAST & (at) suffices. In figForth, CURRENT & & (at at) was used in enough different places to justify making it a separate word. In the 79- and 83-standards, some words must refer to CURRENT & & (at at), while others must refer to LAST & (at) or some equivalent, in order to avoid the bug above. So, the real answer to your question is: CURRENT & & (at at) is the commonest definition for LATEST, but any definition is acceptable for this non-standard word. Hope this clears things up. Happy Forth-ing, Chris PCRelay:SNAKEPIT -> #150 MetroLink (tm) International Network 4.10 Snake Pit*408-287-2353*San Jose, CA*HST/v32 NET/Mail : DC Information Exchange, MetroLink Int'l Hub. (202)433-6639 ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (09/03/90)
Category 10, Topic 14 Message 18 Fri Aug 31, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 13:33 EDT From Elizabeth Rather, Chair, ANS X3J14 Technical Committee: This is addressed to those who have been commenting extensively on our work on UseNet and related boards. 4. History of CREATE: Historically (1971 and many years since), it's the primitive for making the head part of definitions, using WORD to parse the input stream to yield a counted string at HERE, where CREATE then appended a link and code field. With this model, other defining words use CREATE to make the head, then substitute another code field, followed by data or execution tokens. ANS Forth doesn't assume this model, but doesn't preclude it. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (11/04/90)
Category 10, Topic 14 Message 21 Sat Nov 03, 1990 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 18:39 EST > The search rules for vocabularies thus created are different. Quite so; and I said this when I brought the subject up. > The semantic difference is sufficient to break code in ways that > cannot be fixed with a simple textual "global search and replace." > The choice of a different name was intended to allow ... [users] > ...to migrate to an ANS-compliant system with a minimum of grief. > "Global search and replace" is considered an acceptable amount of > "grief". You can't have it both ways. If the semantic difference between VOCABULARYs is sufficient to break code, then the semantic difference between WORDSET and VOCABULARY is likewise sufficient, and you can't fix it with a global search and replace. Or was it your intention to have each transitional system implement two different vocabulary mechanisms? - Brad ----- 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) (11/05/90)
Category 10, Topic 14 Message 22 Sat Nov 03, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 21:40 EST Re: B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] > Or was it your intention to have each transitional system > implement two different vocabulary mechanisms? That will certainly allow existing customers to make the transition to ANS Forth gracefully. I believe that is what the vendors have in mind Brad. 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) (11/05/90)
Category 10, Topic 14 Message 25 Sun Nov 04, 1990 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 15:02 EST > I believe that [implementing two different vocabulary mechanisms] > is what the vendors have in mind Brad. Thanks for the clarification, Dennis. Not that I agree, mind you. > The other consideration is the behavior of word lists defined by > vocabulary. Agreed. I noted this in an early message; but until Dennis' reply (above) I didn't see how the TC expected WORDLIST to fix the problem. While we're on the subject, perhaps someone can comment on a statement I made recently to my local FIG group, namely, that all vocabulary "architectures" currently in use are subsets or special cases of a (FIG-style) tree structure, provided that branches of the tree can be SEALed. E.g. polyForth: the trivial tree which has 8 branches from an empty root. F83 with ONLY/ALSO: commonly, all vocabularies are branches from the ROOT vocabulary, although I believe branches may have sub-branches. (I've never tried.) Note that the architecture of vocabularies (how they appear to be organized) does not say anything about the search order. I'll now take a bigger risk and posit that all search order mechanisms can be emulated with ONLY/ALSO. E.g. polyForth: each VOCABULARY name specifies a search order with one to four wordlists, emulated by : voc-name ONLY list1 ALSO list2 ALSO list3 ALSO list4 ; fig-Forth: each VOCABULARY name specifies its parent's search order to follow its own wordlist, as : voc-name ONLY parent-voc-name ALSO this-word-list ; assuming that all vocabularies are sealed. If branches of the tree are not sealed, fig-Forth is the trivial case. I defer to the X3J14 team in this example's nomenclature, and refer to words which set the search order "vocabularies," and words which refer to a single list of words as "wordlists." We really do need two terms here. Does anyone know of a counterexample to these observations? I realize that I'm making the TC's case for WORDLIST here. Although I'm not sure a word "VOCABULARY" can be defined for all emulations; I've defined emulated vocabularies as colon definitions in these examples, and I think this may be unavoidable for some emulations. - Brad ----- 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) (11/05/90)
Category 10, Topic 14 Message 26 Sun Nov 04, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 20:58 EST Re: wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) > polyFORTH: I'm not sure of the exact details, but I know it's > different from any of the above. in polyFORTH, HEX nnnn VOCABULARY name will define a vocabulary whose search order is based upon the nibbles of the nnnn parameter (least significant nibble searched first). Each vocabulary chain is assigned an odd number from 1 to 15. Thus vocabulary names really only define search orders of 4 vocabularies of the 8 possible. > According to ANSI rules, major vendors cannot be so easily > dismissed. > ... > If someone at Forth, Inc. is listening (Dennis?), perhaps they > could ask Elizabeth to clarify this point. You will see her before I do Mitch, at the meeting next week. However, my understanding is that vendors are not really given any special consideration among the TC members. All TC members' opinions must be acknowledged and a nay vote on the dpANS from any members puts a bad light on the standard. The only thing I have heard that specifically relates to vendors is that they don't have many majors ones who are members anymore. It is basically down to FORTH, Inc. and Creative Solutions, Inc. The comment that I heard from Elizabeth was that if CSI pulls out, FORTH, Inc. will also have to leave. There is no way that Elizabeth wants FORTH, Inc. to be the only major vendor on the committee. That only would doom the standard to failure. However, that discussion was moot since CSI is still participating. I just wish we could get LMI and MMS to join in also. That's all I know. 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) (02/11/91)
Date: 02-07-91 (20:40) Number: 1067 of 1069
To: JACK WOEHR Refer#: 1031
From: CRAIG TRELEAVEN Read: NO
Subj: ALSO/ONLY Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
-> Only if everyone implements *ALL* the extension word sets. In our
-> own case, I can definitely promise you that LMI will *NOT* implement
-> the extension words that it considers brain-damaged, which definitely
-> includes ALSO and ONLY.
Um this is actually directed to Ray Duncan, the orignal poster...
What's so wrong with ALSO/ONLY? I always found it a useful way to
organize a large system. A Forth vocabulary with 1,500+ words is not my
idea of easy to use. I miss ALSO/ONLY on MacForth, now.
Craig Treleaven
PCRelay:CRS -> RelayNet (tm)
4.10a14 Canada Remote Systems * Toronto, Ontario
<<<>>>
-----
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) (02/13/91)
Date: 02-08-91 (09:19) Number: 1083 of 1110 (Echo) To: CRAIG TRELEAVEN Refer#: 1067 From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO Subj: ALSO/ONLY Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) Craig Treleaven writes: >Whats wrong with ALSO/ONLY. ... A Forth vocabulary with 1500+ >words is not my idea of easy to use. It's not my idea of easy to use either. I have nothing against vocabularies, just the brain-damaged ALSO/ONLY scheme. 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) (02/13/91)
Date: 02-10-91 (17:41) Number: 1111 of 1116
To: RAY DUNCAN Refer#: 1083
From: CRAIG TRELEAVEN Read: NO
Subj: ALSO/ONLY Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
Ray Duncan writes:
-> [...] I have nothing against
-> vocabularies, just the brain-damaged ALSO/ONLY scheme.
Sorry, I still don't understand what is wrong with ALSO/ONLY? It
seemed to me to be a nice way to control the search order. Words could
be grouped into as many vocabularies as necessary and the search order
set to only search the relevant ones.
Craig
PCRelay:CRS -> RelayNet (tm)
4.10a14 Canada Remote Systems * Toronto, Ontario
<<<>>>
-----
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) (02/22/91)
Date: 02-19-91 (09:20) Number: 1248 of 1262 (Echo)
To: GARY SMITH Refer#: 1205
From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO
Subj: ANS TC MAGNET FOR VOCABUL Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
Thank you, Mitch, for exactly summarizing my objections to ALSO/ONLY.
In LMI Forth systems, FIND uses a three-level search order:
CONTEXT->CURRENT->FORTH
However, we also have a building block word (find) that is called by
FIND and can search an arbitrary string of vocabulary threads - from one
to many. So it is very easy to implement other schemes for search order
control in LMI Forths and in fact the ALSO/ONLY scheme can be layered on
top of our systems in 1 or 2 screens of code.
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