|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Rod MacBanRod MacBan Date: Oct 9, 2007 04:04
Hi all.
What a shock! After reading few wikipedia pages about this argument
here around, I realized that early Forth implementations widely used
these concepts without naming them:
- The vocabulary is a real "spaghetti stack"
- Function-pointers (and closures) are customary
- The creation words produce a continuation.
Isn't it?
Bye.
|
| Show full article (1.06Kb) |
|
| | 16 Comments |
|
|
Date: Oct 9, 2007 12:21
On Oct 9, 4:04 am, Rod MacBan yahoo.co.uk> wrote:> Hi all.
> What a shock! After reading few wikipedia pages about this argument
> here around, I realized that early Forth implementations widely used
> these concepts without naming them:
> - The vocabulary is a real "spaghetti stack"
> - Function-pointers (and closures) are customary
> - The creation words produce a continuation.
>
> Isn't it?
>
> Bye.
>
>> Again I am depressed to encounter a fundamentally new concept that I
>> was all along unheard of. Its not even in paul graham's book where i
>> learnt part of Lisp. Its in Marc Feeley's video.
>
>> Can anyone explain:
>
>> (1) its origin ...
|
| Show full article (1.25Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: jcomeau_ictxjcomeau_ictx Date: Oct 9, 2007 21:16
On Oct 9, 1:21 pm, gnuist...@ gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 9, 4:04 am, Rod MacBan yahoo.co.uk> wrote:>> Hi all.
>> What a shock! After reading few wikipedia pages about this argument
>> here around, I realized that early Forth implementations widely used
>> these concepts without naming them:
>> - The vocabulary is a real "spaghetti stack"
>> - Function-pointers (and closures) are customary
>> - The creation words produce a continuation.
>
> plz give the link to the wiki page you are talking about so we can
> follow you.
This conversation is from comp.lang.scheme, a discussion on
continuations. "Continuation", "Spaghetti stack", and "Closure" are
all Wikipedia articles. But I don't remember the FIG-FORTH vocabulary
as being a spaghetti stack, rather a simple linked list. I could be
wrong. And after all the alcohol I've ingested today, I can't follow
any of the articles anyway. Cheers!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Aleksej SaushevAleksej Saushev Date: Oct 10, 2007 00:17
> On Oct 9, 1:21 pm, gnuist...@ gmail.com wrote: >> On Oct 9, 4:04 am, Rod MacBan yahoo.co.uk> wrote:>>> Hi all.
>>> What a shock! After reading few wikipedia pages about this argument
>>> here around, I realized that early Forth implementations widely used
>>> these concepts without naming them:
>>> - The vocabulary is a real "spaghetti stack"
>>> - Function-pointers (and closures) are customary
>>> - The creation words produce a continuation.
>>
>> plz give the link to the wiki page you are talking about so we can
>> follow you.
>
> This conversation is from comp.lang.scheme, a discussion on
> continuations. "Continuation", "Spaghetti stack", and "Closure" are
> all Wikipedia articles.
Don't trust Wikipedia so much.
|
| Show full article (1.85Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Rod MacBanRod MacBan Date: Oct 10, 2007 01:24
Yes Aleksej, I mix up two ideas and was wrong about the rest
(*blush*).
Sorry for the concern: yesterday I posted a bit too fast straight off.
The Wikipedia article is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation
and its bottom links.
Don't need to continue this thread. Thanks.
Rod.
>> On Oct 9, 1:21 pm, gnuist...@ gmail.com wrote: >>> On Oct 9, 4:04 am, Rod MacBan yahoo.co.uk> wrote:>>>> Hi all.
>>>> What a shock!...
|
| Show full article (2.22Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Alex McDonaldAlex McDonald Date: Oct 10, 2007 01:59
On Oct 10, 8:17 am, Aleksej Saushev wrote:>> On Oct 9, 1:21 pm, gnuist...@ gmail.com wrote: >>> On Oct 9, 4:04 am, Rod MacBan yahoo.co.uk> wrote:>>>> Hi all.
>>>> What a shock! After reading few wikipedia pages about this argument
>>>> here around, I realized that early Forth implementations widely used
>>>> these concepts without naming them:
>>>> - The vocabulary is a real "spaghetti stack"
>>>> - Function-pointers (and closures) are customary
>>>> - The creation words produce a continuation.
>
>>> plz give the link to the wiki page you are talking about so we can
>>> follow you.
>
>> This conversation is from comp.lang.scheme, a discussion on
>> continuations. "Continuation", "Spaghetti stack", and "Closure" are
>> all Wikipedia articles.
>
> Don't trust Wikipedia so much. ...
|
| Show full article (2.45Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Aleksej SaushevAleksej Saushev Date: Oct 10, 2007 04:25
Alex McDonald rivadpm.com> writes:
> On Oct 10, 8:17 am, Aleksej Saushev wrote:>>> On Oct 9, 1:21 pm, gnuist...@ gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Oct 9, 4:04 am, Rod MacBan
|
| Show full article (3.49Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: George HubertGeorge Hubert Date: Oct 10, 2007 07:52
On 10 Oct, 12:25, Aleksej Saushev wrote:> Alex McDonald rivadpm.com> writes:>> On Oct 10, 8:17 am, Aleksej Saushev wrote:>>>> On Oct 9, 1:21 pm, gnuist...@ gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Oct 9, 4:04 am, Rod MacBan yahoo.co.uk> wrote:>>>>>> Hi all.
>>>>>> What a shock! After reading few wikipedia pages about this argument
>>>>>> here around, I realized that early Forth implementations widely used
>>>>>> these concepts without naming them:
>>>>>> - The vocabulary is a real "spaghetti stack"
>>>>>> - Function-pointers (and closures) are customary
>>>>>> - The creation words produce a continuation.
>
>>>>> plz give the link to the wiki page you are talking about so we can
>>>>> follow you.
>
>>>> This conversation is from comp.lang.scheme, a discussion on
>>>> continuations. "Continuation", "Spaghetti stack", and "Closure" are
>>>> all Wikipedia articles. ...
|
| Show full article (6.62Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Aleksej SaushevAleksej Saushev Date: Oct 10, 2007 09:22
George Hubert yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> On 10 Oct, 12:25, Aleksej Saushev wrote:>> Alex McDonald rivadpm.com> writes:>>> On Oct 10, 8:17 am, Aleksej Saushev wrote:>>>>> On Oct 9, 1:21 pm, gnuist...@ gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Oct 9, 4:04 am, Rod MacBan yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
|
| Show full article (5.94Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Marcel HendrixMarcel Hendrix Date: Oct 10, 2007 12:30
George Hubert yahoo.co.uk> writes Re: The fundamental concept of continuations
[..]>>> Alex McDonald rivadpm.com> writes:>>> No Forth that I know of contains a special word " ".
>>> Perhaps you are confusing it with BL, and it may or may not be the
>>> top word in the vocabulary. The parser uses blanks to delimit words.
> It's not a word at all in the sense that it can be executed; it only
> has the name and link fields with no CFA or PFA (since BL can't be
> found by the parser it doesn't need them).
[..]
I find this blank namefield quite useful in iForth. It separates WORDS
like shown below:
iForth version 2.1.2559, generated 22:35:17, July 23, 2007.
i6 binary, native floating-point, double precision.
Copyright 1996 - 2007 Marcel Hendrix.
|
| Show full article (1.23Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
