2025-08-27 02:39:28 <lf94        > Almost done a general fixed point library :o
2025-08-27 02:40:02 <lf94        > All that's really left is implementing CORDIC for sin/cos
2025-08-27 02:40:24 <lf94        > How do I stop the bot
2025-08-27 02:46:51 <ajhidd      > type QUIT
2025-08-27 02:48:16 <lf94        > QUIT
2025-08-27 02:48:24 <lf94        > Testing testing
2025-08-27 02:48:28 <lf94        > Nope, that didnt work
2025-08-27 02:48:40 <lf94        > Nothing's working
2025-08-27 02:49:55 <ajhidd      > Looks like a bug. I'll check it out later. I'll shut the bot down for now
2025-08-27 02:53:26 <lf94        > Thank you <3
2025-08-27 02:53:45 <lf94        > It would be nice if it were opt-in also
2025-08-27 02:54:18 <xentrac     > lf94: congrats!
2025-08-27 02:54:32 <xentrac     > I still don't understand CORDIC properly
2025-08-27 02:54:52 <lf94        > I mean, it's not much of an accomplishment @ general fixed-point lib, but it's cute at 26 lines!
2025-08-27 02:55:01 <lf94        > I'm sure everyone's done this in forth at some point
2025-08-27 02:55:28 <lf94        > CORDIC doesn't seem too complicated. The core idea is you get "closer and closer" to the real answer
2025-08-27 02:55:58 <lf94        > My concern is if this is fast enough for my needs
2025-08-27 02:56:18 <lf94        > I'm probably going to do a LUT but we'll see
2025-08-27 03:55:54 <ajhidd      > lf94: Did you have any interaction with the bot before typing "Almost done <...>"?
2025-08-27 03:56:04 <lf94        > Maybe months ago
2025-08-27 03:56:06 <lf94        > lol
2025-08-27 03:56:55 <ajhidd      > Hm. I cannot reprodue the bug. It should not react to channel messages without <nick>: prefix - and it does not when I test it
2025-08-27 03:57:58 <lf94        > I could have interacted with it months ago
2025-08-27 03:58:01 <lf94        > It's a real possibility
2025-08-27 03:58:08 <lf94        > quit didn't work though
2025-08-27 03:59:04 <ajhidd      > Nope, I've modified and started it just today. You must've interacted with cleobuline's original bot :)
2025-08-27 03:59:24 <lf94        > Ah maybe
2025-08-27 05:37:49 <vms14       > :0
2025-08-27 05:37:55 <vms14       > i'm playing with sockets
2025-08-27 05:38:11 <vms14       > i know gforth has some socket thingy already though
2025-08-27 05:38:50 <vms14       > i have this c header file
2025-08-27 05:38:54 <vms14       > https://termbin.com/eh80
2025-08-27 05:39:04 <vms14       > which i have stolen from a random socket c example xd
2025-08-27 05:40:57 <vms14       > then is just to bind that in gforth: c-function socket make_inet_socket a n -- n     c-function write-line write_line a n n -- n
2025-08-27 05:41:24 <vms14       > although it's not really write-line, but write
2025-08-27 05:42:21 <vms14       > s\" 127.0.0.1\0" drop 3000 socket constant sock      s" oh..." sock write-line
2025-08-27 05:42:57 <vms14       > although maybe i should change the socket function to accept the str + count so i can just use s" instead of s\" + drop
2025-08-27 05:44:00 <vms14       > i was wondering if i could play with the irc protocol in forth
2025-08-27 05:45:21 <vms14       > what would be cooler is xlib
2025-08-27 07:32:50 <MrMobius    > re CORDIC, I got slightly inaccurate results by calculating the K value for the max number of digits I wanted then truncating for less digits
2025-08-27 07:33:18 <MrMobius    > IIRC, it's not that simple
2025-08-27 14:02:25 <olle        > What about an `if` word that reads buffer until `then`, runs it, checks stack for `true`, and then runs stream from `then` to `end` if it exists.
2025-08-27 14:02:40 <olle        > Maybe frowned upon that a word reads the stream like that.
2025-08-27 14:06:05 <vdupras     > sure, I guess you could do it, you could even manage to have the compiled version of it, but that would mean that your "if" can only be fed from "local" code. That's not very composable. For example, you can't do ": foo if bar then ;" anymore
2025-08-27 14:06:41 <olle        > Hm
2025-08-27 14:07:00 <olle        > depending on what "bar" is?
2025-08-27 14:07:28 <olle        > I actually have a two-pass system, so `if` gets parsed to Word(if) before run.
2025-08-27 14:07:57 <olle        > But yea you can't "cut" `then` without an `end`
2025-08-27 14:10:25 <vdupras     > ... so "if" gets compiled in a "traditional" manner if no "end" is encountered down the stream? That sounds like a good bug inducer
2025-08-27 14:11:10 <olle        > Well your example had no `end` or `endif`
2025-08-27 14:11:31 <olle        > But there's no syntax check, so I guess it would just be buggy or weird. Will have to try a bit more.
2025-08-27 14:11:40 <vdupras     > I was giving an example of "traditional" Forth code, in which there is no "end"
2025-08-27 14:11:46 <olle        > Oh
2025-08-27 14:11:54 <vdupras     > and in which the "condition" comes from the parameter stack
2025-08-27 14:11:59 <olle        > True
2025-08-27 14:12:35 <olle        > Since `if` would run stream between `if` and `then`, I guess you could do a void word to just check the already existing stack entry.
2025-08-27 14:12:55 <olle        > Like `if dup then . endif`
2025-08-27 14:13:47 <vdupras     > that could work, yes
2025-08-27 14:15:10 <olle        > +1
2025-08-27 14:17:48 <vdupras     > but hey, wait, isn't your proposal just syntactic sugar? If you make "if" into a noop, give "then" the meaning of traditional "if" and give "endif" the meaning of traditional then, you end up with pretty much what you want, without having to resort to stream peeking, right?
2025-08-27 14:26:28 <olle        > That is an interesting point.
2025-08-27 14:28:17 <olle        > Lemme write that down.
2025-08-27 14:28:52 <olle        > Funny that `if` would be noop.
2025-08-27 14:29:41 <olle        > Isn't original `if` stream peeking tho? How would it know which chunk to run?
2025-08-27 14:31:19 <vdupras     > it doesn't. It "knows" because it has a ( f -- ) signature on the stack. Even if you implemented your stream peeking thing, it would require the "peeked" code to have a ( -- f ) signature, or else break the stack. In the end, it makes no difference
2025-08-27 14:36:07 <vdupras     > what you *could* do if you implemented your stream peeking thing is have "if" be the starting point of stack signature check. If PS doesn't grow by exactly one, you could abort with "bad condition signature". It would be a fancy seatbelt
2025-08-27 14:37:07 <vdupras     > (but then again, no stream peeking required, just do like I described above, but "if", instead of being a noop, is a PS level marker)
2025-08-27 14:45:41 <olle        > Hm
2025-08-27 14:56:28 <veltas      > In my design for a "next-gen Forth" I considered making 'end' take an xt on stack, so it can finish literally any construct
2025-08-27 14:57:08 <veltas      > Because having a million 'end' words is a bit redundant
2025-08-27 14:57:37 <veltas      > And likewise there should probably be some tracking of syntax depth so you don't have an unbalanced word
2025-08-27 14:57:58 <veltas      > I achieve in zenv with a variable to remember initial stack depth at :
2025-08-27 15:01:08 <olle        > If you use `end` instead of {}, you might end up with a million
2025-08-27 15:06:37 <veltas      > Well end or }
2025-08-27 15:07:06 <veltas      > Up to you, I thought something that looks a little like Lua suited Forth better but I know some people prefer symbolic syntax more
2025-08-27 15:10:59 <olle        > Oh you mean like endif, endloop, etc?
2025-08-27 15:11:19 <olle        > Yes, agree otherwise, Lua-like Forth-like :)
2025-08-27 16:20:59 <lf94        > veltas: sounds nice
2025-08-27 16:21:17 <lf94        > veltas: 'end' could be anything right?
2025-08-27 16:29:11 <veltas      > Yeah
2025-08-27 17:19:54 <xentrac     > veltas: IRC is much simpler than the X-Windows protocol
2025-08-27 17:21:56 <xentrac     > veltas: hmm, so you'd have if{ do{ begin{ }else{ and a single } to finish them all?
2025-08-27 22:14:10 <veltas      > xentrac: Re IRC / X wrong person
2025-08-27 22:14:40 <veltas      > I'd do e.g. if ... then ... end
2025-08-27 22:15:04 <veltas      > I don't think {} look good for forthy langs but that's my very subjective opinion
2025-08-27 22:15:59 <veltas      > if .. then .. elseif .. then .. else .. end  probably
2025-08-27 22:16:26 <veltas      > Like Lua really, I think it's a nicer wordy language
2025-08-27 22:21:24 <cleobuline  > forthBot:  2 2 * .
2025-08-27 22:21:25 <forthBot    > 4
2025-08-27 22:21:31 <veltas      > xentrac: Here's some doodle I found https://termbin.com/7e2x
2025-08-27 22:23:08 <veltas      > The parens are just the braces concept I wrote that checks the result is exactly 1 deeper than start of parens, or does nothing if it's a 'release build'
2025-08-27 22:31:20 <veltas      > I think really I'd rather write C than that language though
2025-08-27 22:32:19 <xentrac     > I still haven't tried out the COMFY-65 control structures in a Forth yet
2025-08-27 22:33:02 <xentrac     > I think shortcut booleans and multiple exits from a loop will pay off bigtime
2025-08-27 22:33:21 <xentrac     > that doodle does indeed look very much like Lua
2025-08-27 22:34:11 <xentrac     > are the parens here intended to be the operand-stack-checking thing you posted previously?
2025-08-27 22:34:17 <veltas      > Yep
2025-08-27 22:34:26 <xentrac     > https://veltas.co.uk/blog/forth-expr.htm
2025-08-27 22:34:34 <xentrac     > in November
2025-08-27 22:35:22 <veltas      > You could achieve my doodle in a standard forth probably
2025-08-27 22:35:25 <xentrac     > yeah
2025-08-27 22:35:26 <veltas      > Or most standard forths
2025-08-27 22:35:35 <xentrac     > why only most?
2025-08-27 22:37:15 <veltas      > I just hesitate to say it's achievable in all, but maybe it is
2025-08-27 22:37:38 <vms14       > oh olle left, i was reading the irc logs and he was talking about an if word
2025-08-27 22:37:38 <veltas      > Sorry sort of in two conversations right now
2025-08-27 22:37:41 <xentrac     > last night thinking about multiple return values and compilers I realized something interesting.  Forth having two stacks allows the return of variable-sized data structures in the same way as Ada's secondary stack: https://docs.adacore.com/gnat_ugx-docs/html/gnat_ugx/gnat_ugx/the_stacks.html
2025-08-27 22:38:15 <vms14       > mine is like:  if 1 then "is true" else "is false" endif
2025-08-27 22:38:17 <xentrac     > which is difficult to achieve with a single framed stack like C implementations normally use
2025-08-27 22:38:20 <vms14       > if you just put  if then ... endif  the test is taken from the stack
2025-08-27 22:38:25 <xentrac     > right
2025-08-27 22:38:55 <vms14       > the problem is that if i add some sort of macros that evaluate a list, that if will not work
2025-08-27 22:39:23 <xentrac     > I was thinking about the fairly common case where you want to return a success/failure flag and also some meaningful value, which is easy in Forth and troublesome in most languages
2025-08-27 22:39:26 <vms14       > well i can "compile" it, but i won't be able to dynamically generate it's body
2025-08-27 22:40:03 <xentrac     > in Lua you can do it but it's a little bit difficult to write higher-order functions that deal with multiple return values
2025-08-27 22:42:32 <veltas      > Also not very efficient in the Lua VM
2025-08-27 22:43:34 <veltas      > Lists of stuff aren't as efficient as tables, better to just use tables if you've got more than a normal amount of parameters/returns
2025-08-27 22:45:24 <xentrac     > hmm, how do you disassemble the bytecode for a function in LuaJIT?
2025-08-27 22:46:38 <les         > one byte at a time /rimshot
2025-08-27 22:48:32 <veltas      > require("jit.util").funcinfo(function_name).bytecode
2025-08-27 22:48:38 <veltas      > according to Mr GPT
2025-08-27 22:49:43 <xentrac     > that's nil
2025-08-27 22:49:56 <xentrac     > but funcinfo is at least a function...
2025-08-27 22:51:21 <veltas      > for k in pairs(funcinfores) ...
2025-08-27 22:51:23 <xentrac     > https://wiki.facepunch.com/gmod/jit.util.funcinfo doesn't look promising
2025-08-27 22:51:56 <veltas      > Also said command line -jdump=bc
2025-08-27 22:52:04 <veltas      > for lua bytecode
2025-08-27 22:52:33 <xentrac     > oh, I think that does work
2025-08-27 22:52:44 <veltas      > funcbc maybe
2025-08-27 22:53:16 <xentrac     > hmm, maybe not