2025-01-22 01:48:15 <KipIngram   > xentrac: No, I don't really have any particular need to have everyone agree with me.
2025-01-22 01:50:36 <KipIngram   > I don't think of it as wanting to maintain an underclass, but I won't try to talk you out of it if you see it that way.
2025-01-22 02:10:50 <thrig       > social mobility is kinda low in america
2025-01-22 05:12:26 <KipIngram   > It used to be much higher.  I think the growth of corporations has undermined it.  There used to be a lot more small businesses, and starting a small business was a common upward mobility move.
2025-01-22 05:12:40 <KipIngram   > It's like we've kicked all the middle rungs out of the ladder.
2025-01-22 05:13:55 <KipIngram   > When I was a kid I could look up Main Street of the little town I lived in and see it lined with stores owned by people whose kids I played with and went to school with.
2025-01-22 05:14:25 <KipIngram   > Dykes Drugs, Hollis Furniture, etc.  Now everything is Walmart and CVS and so on.
2025-01-22 05:17:00 <KipIngram   > Oh, it snowed here today.  Two inches or so.  Practically unheard of here in Houston.
2025-01-22 05:17:27 <KipIngram   > And tonight it's supposed to get down to 20 F, which is going on ten degrees colder than our normal "coldest."
2025-01-22 13:49:15 <KipIngram   > re: the above, my own personal experience has been a good one, and it FELT like all I had to do was work diligently.  But maybe I also had some good luck - really no way to be sure with a sample of one.
2025-01-22 13:51:05 <KipIngram   > But my mom and dad were born into pretty much nothing, and they did ok and I've pushed on up higher than them.  My kids seem to be doing ok to the extent I can tell so far.  So I can't complain.
2025-01-22 13:51:38 <KipIngram   > But I think, thrig, that the problem you point out is a relatively recent one.
2025-01-22 13:52:02 <KipIngram   > Like the last half century or so.
2025-01-22 14:30:36 <Guest22     > hello
2025-01-22 14:31:20 <Guest22     > I have two questions about forh I couldn't resolve searching for info
2025-01-22 14:32:19 <Guest22     > first is about word :NONAME, I would like to know where it is compiled, I mean where in memory are saved the words in its parameter area
2025-01-22 14:33:24 <Guest22     > as far as I know after reading info is the compilation of a :NONAME definition is implementation dependent, it could be stored in dictionary or in dinyamic memory or whatever
2025-01-22 14:33:40 <Guest22     > is there any standard state where to store the definition?
2025-01-22 14:37:17 <Guest22     > the second question is about any word to store a value in stack , I mean store a value in TOS, it would be similar to simple issue the value but doing it "programmatically" manipulating the stack, i.e:  rather than simply "3" something like "3 TOS !"  so I could also do "3 TOS 2 + !"  (assuming stack grows downwards)
2025-01-22 14:48:20 <xentrac     > KipIngram: I think US social mobility has been decreasing for the last half century for a variety of reasons
2025-01-22 14:48:54 <xentrac     > Guest22: some Forths do have words like sp@ and sp!
2025-01-22 14:51:23 <xentrac     > if you have a downward-growing parameter stack like GForth you can push 10 unknown things on the stack with sp@ 10 cells - sp! for example
2025-01-22 14:52:51 <xentrac     > the usual use for sp@, sp!, rp@, and rp! is to implement things like abort", depth, and multithreading.
2025-01-22 14:56:25 <xentrac     > your example of 3 tos ! seems to be intended to push a 3 onto the parameter stack "by hand".  This is pretty tricky because the stack depth is changing as you do it
2025-01-22 15:02:02 <xentrac     > also as you try to do that kind of thing you're overwriting the things you try to put onto the stack
2025-01-22 15:04:50 <xentrac     > In GForth sp@ cell - >r r@ sp! 57 r> ! seems to work.  First it computes the new stack pointer and moves it to the return stack.  Then it sets the stack pointer to the computed value, pushing an unknown value onto the stack.  Then it overwrites that unknown value with 57
2025-01-22 15:06:00 <xentrac     > the standard is intended to support Forths that implement the stack in a variety of different ways, so it doesn't standardize these words
2025-01-22 15:06:50 <xentrac     > :noname generally compiles the definition into the dictionary as usual; it just does some trick or other to ensure that name lookups won't find it
2025-01-22 15:07:00 <xentrac     > I forget whether the standad defines this
2025-01-22 15:11:36 <crc         > :noname is standard, sp@ sp! rp@ rp! and such are not
2025-01-22 15:13:00 <crc         > dpans: :noname
2025-01-22 15:13:01 <[bot]dpans  > 6.2.0455   :NONAME                    "colon-no-name"                             CORE EXT
2025-01-22 15:13:01 <[bot]dpans  > ( C:  -- colon-sys )  ( S:  -- xt )
2025-01-22 15:13:01 <[bot]dpans  > Create an execution token xt, enter compilation state and start the
2025-01-22 15:13:01 <[bot]dpans  > current definition, producing colon-sys.  Append the initiation
2025-01-22 15:13:02 <[bot]dpans  > see http://forth.works/dpans/6_2_0455.txt for full description
2025-01-22 15:28:53 <xentrac     > right, sorry for not clarifying that
2025-01-22 22:59:23 <pgimeno     > : pgimeno ##forth @ dup politics = if drop else read then ;
2025-01-22 23:19:53 <xentrac     > heh