2021-06-18 00:20:09 <dave0       > re maw
2021-06-18 07:27:14 <neuro_      > I will probably buy it, but still if anyone already has or has access to it could they share this? https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/96429.96431
2021-06-18 07:28:01 <neuro_      > Well I suppose no one would, or should. Darn, I can't delete the message.
2021-06-18 07:28:26 <neuro_      > IRC, the immutable chat.
2021-06-18 09:54:53 <siraben     > KipIngram: ah this is what I meant by their track record http://ebin.city/%7Ewerwolf/posts/brave-is-shit/
2021-06-18 09:55:00 <siraben     > (Brave's)
2021-06-18 09:56:38 <siraben     > cess11: if you have a ti-83, https://github.com/siraben/ti84-forth should run fine
2021-06-18 09:56:44 <siraben     > not as a flash app but as an ASM program
2021-06-18 09:56:52 <siraben     > I've had some people tell me it works well on 83
2021-06-18 11:39:12 <KipIngram   > I've got an 84.
2021-06-18 12:20:05 <NieDzejkob  > neuro_: hmm, scihub errors out on that. Let me know if you do manage to obtain it, sounds interesting
2021-06-18 12:37:40 <cess11      > siraben: ah, nice, might give it a shot when summer takes hold and the rest at work go on vacation
2021-06-18 14:08:50 <NieDzejkob  > is there a standard-compliant way of copying the contents of one block to another, without an intermediate buffer? IIUC, after x block y block, the contents of x block might've already been invalidated
2021-06-18 14:14:30 <NieDzejkob  > if I do `x block y buffer` and the `buffer` call reuses the address, can I expect that this means the new buffer already contains what block x does?
2021-06-18 14:19:00 <crc         > for buffer, "The contents of the block are unspecified.", so no guarantees of this
2021-06-18 14:19:42 <siraben     > crc: is cbridge back up? awfully quiet in fn-land
2021-06-18 14:21:06 <crc         > I'll check...
2021-06-18 14:23:08 <siraben     > too busy netsplitting themselves to oblivion cbridge
2021-06-18 14:25:46 <crc         > it should be working, but I can't fully confirm as clog doesn't seem to be connected to #forth currently. The bot does show connecting though.
2021-06-18 15:05:50 <NieDzejkob  > hmm, what's the rationale for vocabulary words like FORTH overwriting the top entry of the search-order stack instead of pushing?
2021-06-18 15:57:23 <crc         > I've never really taken a close look at the standard Forth vocabulary model
2021-06-18 16:07:42 <NieDzejkob  > gforth does the same thing...
2021-06-18 16:28:34 <NieDzejkob  > neuro_: https://niedzejkob.keybase.pub/threading-lisp.pdf
2021-06-18 16:56:09 <moon        > Been playing a bit more with FORTH recently, doing shit on my P2 again. Going to try writing an IRC bot on it, i expect it to go poorly haha
2021-06-18 16:56:52 <moon        > mostly as well
2021-06-18 16:57:01 <moon        > it's an MCU and doesn't really work for networking :P
2021-06-18 16:58:47 <crc         > heh
2021-06-18 16:59:09 <crc         > if you get networking working, irc bots are pretty easy
2021-06-18 17:00:23 <moon        > Yea, I'm considering simply cheating
2021-06-18 17:00:34 <moon        > and using socat + the UART
2021-06-18 17:01:13 <moon        > but using the existing UART means I can't have the console open and IRC conn at the same time
2021-06-18 17:02:49 <moon        > I unfortunately don't have two serial devices :P
2021-06-18 17:03:53 <moon        > if i did it'd be quite easy to just use two
2021-06-18 17:10:23 <moon        > that also gets complicated tho due to the fact I need to load the program...
2021-06-18 17:10:24 <moon        > aa
2021-06-18 17:34:00 <veltas      > NieDzejkob: I think the logic is that words like FORTH and ASSEMBLY would totally change the words available, and in the search order model that could be analogous to changing the top-level wordlist
2021-06-18 17:35:05 <veltas      > And it's trivial to push, you just do ALSO FORTH or ALSO ASSEMBLY
2021-06-18 17:38:56 <veltas      > I suppose that's the other reason, the convention might as well be to replace top wordlist, then you can use ALSO to push those wordlists
2021-06-18 17:39:17 <veltas      > That's how I define my wordlist words
2021-06-18 18:41:05 <cbridge     > -!- ChanServ changed mode/#forth -> +o  ChanServ
2021-06-18 19:32:38 <dave0       > maw
2021-06-18 19:41:36 <KipIngram   > maw dave0
2021-06-18 19:43:13 <dave0       > maw KipIngram
2021-06-18 21:03:08 <dave0       > time for a walk! bbl
2021-06-18 22:41:31 <cbridge     > <mark4> the more usual (i wont say standard) way of controlling the search order is for a vocabulary to replace the top item
2021-06-18 22:41:42 <cbridge     > <mark4> you say also forth to ADD forth to the search order.
2021-06-18 22:41:47 <cbridge     > <mark4> my forths do not do that
2021-06-18 22:42:07 <cbridge     > <mark4> so i dont have a also word
2021-06-18 22:42:34 <cbridge     > <mark4> usually you can have forth compiler foo bar bam forth compiler forth foo bam bar  all on the search order stack at the same time
2021-06-18 22:43:03 <cbridge     > <mark4> my forths do not allow that.  if you reference a voc thats already in context it is moved to the top of the stack
2021-06-18 22:43:25 <cbridge     > <mark4> so you can never have any vocab in context more than once
2021-06-18 22:43:48 <dave0       > re maw
2021-06-18 22:44:31 <cbridge     > <mark4> they say the advantage to the more usual way is that you can include some module in the build and it can modify the search order and then leave everuthing the way it was before you loa
2021-06-18 22:45:03 <cbridge     > <mark4> i allow you to create you own custom suearch order and you can add anything you want to it then you can throw it away when you are done and the previously in use search stack is still
2021-06-18 22:45:39 <cbridge     > <mark4> +context only forth compiler assembler foo bar bam ..... compile your sources here ..... -context
2021-06-18 22:47:27 <crc         > maw dave0
2021-06-18 22:48:15 <dave0       > maw crc
2021-06-18 23:47:50 <cbridge     > <KipIngram> mark4: Yes - I like that approach.  I have a stack of vocabularies.  So I could do that by having the ability to put a "barrier" on that stack.
2021-06-18 23:48:02 <cbridge     > <mark4> ya
2021-06-18 23:48:09 <cbridge     > <KipIngram> So to create a new context I'd push a barrier and then push my own search order.
2021-06-18 23:48:21 <cbridge     > <KipIngram> Then have a word that would discard down to and including the first boundary.
2021-06-18 23:48:42 <cbridge     > <KipIngram> I'd have to give thought to what gets searched when I first push that barrier.
2021-06-18 23:48:59 <cbridge     > <KipIngram> Because at that point there are no vocabularies searchable.
2021-06-18 23:49:18 <cbridge     > <KipIngram> The idea might need a little polishing, but I think it can be made to work.
2021-06-18 23:49:49 <cbridge     > <KipIngram> Maybe the barrier requires "activation."
2021-06-18 23:49:58 <cbridge     > <KipIngram> So, push barrier, push search order, activate barrier.