I am getting addlebrained...
: T abort" kkk" ; ok
0 t ok 1
1 t
*the terminal*:3:4: error: kkk
1 >>>t<<<
Backtrace:
kernel/basics.fs:269:17 0 $6FFFFF7F78B8 throw >*terminal*:1:12 1 $6FFFFF877220 c(abort")
What's wrong?
In article <74577042-a1c8-4ec1...@googlegroups.com>,
minf...@arcor.de <minf...@arcor.de> wrote:
I am getting addlebrained...
: T abort" kkk" ; ok
0 t ok 1
1 t
*the terminal*:3:4: error: kkk
1 >>>t<<<
Backtrace:
kernel/basics.fs:269:17 0 $6FFFFF7F78B8 throw
*terminal*:1:12 1 $6FFFFF877220 c(abort")
What's wrong?That is more or less it is supposed to work.
The error "kkk" is mentioned, and the Forth gives you some more
information that could be useful.
That is more or less it is supposed to work.Gosh, yes. Addlebrained I am. :o(
The error "kkk" is mentioned, and the Forth gives you some more
information that could be useful.
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 12:18:54 PM UTC+2, minf...@arcor.de wrote:
Sir, I have a complaint about your theater. Every time I enter a door labeled "EXIT"That is more or less it is supposed to work.Gosh, yes. Addlebrained I am. :o(
The error "kkk" is mentioned, and the Forth gives you some more information that could be useful.
I end up outside. ;-)
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 12:18:54 PM UTC+2, minf...@arcor.de wrote:
That is more or less it is supposed to work.Gosh, yes. Addlebrained I am. :o(
The error "kkk" is mentioned, and the Forth gives you some more
information that could be useful.
Sir, I have a complaint about your theater. Every time I enter a door labeled "EXIT"
I end up outside. ;-)
the.bee...@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2022 um 17:02:35 UTC+2: >> On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 12:18:54 PM UTC+2, minf...@arcor.de wrote:
Sir, I have a complaint about your theater. Every time I enter a door labeled "EXIT"That is more or less it is supposed to work.Gosh, yes. Addlebrained I am. :o(
The error "kkk" is mentioned, and the Forth gives you some more
information that could be useful.
I end up outside. ;-)
Even worse, I have been roaming in the 2nd floor. ;-)
(ABORT" behind a long forgotten exception frame..)
In article <f15c3df7-d0f6-4848...@googlegroups.com>,
minf...@arcor.de <minf...@arcor.de> wrote:
the.bee...@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2022 um 17:02:35 UTC+2: >> On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 12:18:54 PM UTC+2, minf...@arcor.de wrote:
Sir, I have a complaint about your theater. Every time I enter a door labeled "EXIT"That is more or less it is supposed to work.Gosh, yes. Addlebrained I am. :o(
The error "kkk" is mentioned, and the Forth gives you some more
information that could be useful.
I end up outside. ;-)
Even worse, I have been roaming in the 2nd floor. ;-)I have made ABORT" a loadable extension in ciforth.
(ABORT" behind a long forgotten exception frame..)
If you intend to use it, you better mean it.
Groetjes Albert
--
"in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:14:04 AM UTC+2, none albert wrote:
In article <f15c3df7-d0f6-4848...@googlegroups.com>,
minf...@arcor.de <minf...@arcor.de> wrote:
the.bee...@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2022 um 17:02:35 UTC+2:I have made ABORT" a loadable extension in ciforth.
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 12:18:54 PM UTC+2, minf...@arcor.de wrote: >> >> > > That is more or less it is supposed to work.
Sir, I have a complaint about your theater. Every time I enter a door labeled "EXIT"The error "kkk" is mentioned, and the Forth gives you some moreGosh, yes. Addlebrained I am. :o(
information that could be useful.
I end up outside. ;-)
Even worse, I have been roaming in the 2nd floor. ;-)
(ABORT" behind a long forgotten exception frame..)
If you intend to use it, you better mean it.
"This computer will self destruct in 10 seconds. 9, 8, 7, 6.."
;-)
Hans Bezemer
Even worse, I have been roaming in the 2nd floor. ;-)I have made ABORT" a loadable extension in ciforth.
(ABORT" behind a long forgotten exception frame..)
If you intend to use it, you better mean it.
On 1/07/2022 16:19, Hans Bezemer wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:14:04 AM UTC+2, none albert wrote:
In article <f15c3df7-d0f6-4848...@googlegroups.com>,
minf...@arcor.de <minf...@arcor.de> wrote:
the.bee...@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 30. Juni 2022 um 17:02:35 UTC+2:I have made ABORT" a loadable extension in ciforth.
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 12:18:54 PM UTC+2, minf...@arcor.de wrote: >> >> > > That is more or less it is supposed to work.
Sir, I have a complaint about your theater. Every time I enter a door labeled "EXIT"The error "kkk" is mentioned, and the Forth gives you some moreGosh, yes. Addlebrained I am. :o(
information that could be useful.
I end up outside. ;-)
Even worse, I have been roaming in the 2nd floor. ;-)
(ABORT" behind a long forgotten exception frame..)
If you intend to use it, you better mean it.
"This computer will self destruct in 10 seconds. 9, 8, 7, 6.."
;-)
Hans Bezemer: program 1 abort" Let me out of here!" ;
: run
['] program catch -2 of
cr ." Sorry - ANS says no. Press a key." key drop recurse
then ;
Tested on gforth :)
IMO acc. to standard 9.6.2.0680 & 9.6.1.2275 it should be as:
: t1 abort" xxx" ;
1 0 t1 .s 1 ok \ nothing happens
drop
0 1 t1 .s xxx ok \ show message, do CORE ABORT that resumes to QUIT
: t2 ['] t1 catch ;
1 0 t2 .s 1 0 ok \ nothing happens, flag 0 replace by exception code 0
2drop
0 1 t2 .s 0 -2 ok \ don't show message, flag 1 replaced by exception code -2
However it seems all unclear because different Forths seem to behave differently.
0 1 t2 .s 0 -2 ok \ don't show message, flag 1 replaced by exception code -2
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 3:48:35 PM UTC+2, minf...@arcor.de wrote:
IMO acc. to standard 9.6.2.0680 & 9.6.1.2275 it should be as:
: t1 abort" xxx" ;
1 0 t1 .s 1 ok \ nothing happens
drop
0 1 t1 .s xxx ok \ show message, do CORE ABORT that resumes to QUIT
: t2 ['] t1 catch ;
1 0 t2 .s 1 0 ok \ nothing happens, flag 0 replace by exception code 0
2drop
0 1 t2 .s 0 -2 ok \ don't show message, flag 1 replaced by exception code -2 >>
However it seems all unclear because different Forths seem to behave differently.
You're completely right - according to the standard, ABORT should be called. And
according to the standard (Exception EXT) perform the function of -1 THROW.
However - if one does *not* implement Exception Ext, the Core definition should
be executed - which is: Empty the data stack and perform the function of QUIT,
which includes emptying the return stack, without displaying a message.
Again - according to Core - ABORT" should perform an implementation-defined abort sequence *that includes* the function of ABORT. However, according to Exception Ext, ABORT" should perform the function of -2 THROW.
So the only thing I can imagine is that *some* implementations DO NOT implement
Exception Ext or do not comply to it (for ABORT and ABORT").
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:14:04 AM UTC+2, none albert wrote:
Even worse, I have been roaming in the 2nd floor. ;-)I have made ABORT" a loadable extension in ciforth.
(ABORT" behind a long forgotten exception frame..)
If you intend to use it, you better mean it.
All fun on a sticky - in 4tH ABORT does just that: it quits, no questions asked.
Which IMHO is logical - if you want to quit, quit. If you wanted to get CAUGHT,
you would have THROWn an exception. So - if you use ABORT" in 4tH, it
shows a message on stdout and goes bye-bye.
Hans Bezemer
You're completely right - according to the standard, ABORT should be called. And
according to the standard (Exception EXT) perform the function of -1 THROW.
Hans Bezemer
In article <3f483a76-f41b-4f5f...@googlegroups.com>,There is a difference between the Core and Exception Ext definitions.
Hans Bezemer <the.bee...@gmail.com> wrote:
You're completely right - according to the standard, ABORT should be called. And-1 is obligatory. There is no requirement to use THROW though.
according to the standard (Exception EXT) perform the function of -1 THROW. Not true. If the implementor decides to implement ABORT via a THROW than
So ciforth is standard in this respect.
Groetjes Albert
--
"in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 8:10:58 PM UTC+2, none albert wrote:
In article <3f483a76-f41b-4f5f...@googlegroups.com>,
Hans Bezemer <the.bee...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is a difference between the Core and Exception Ext definitions.You're completely right - according to the standard, ABORT should be called. AndNot true. If the implementor decides to implement ABORT via a THROW than
according to the standard (Exception EXT) perform the function of -1 THROW.
-1 is obligatory. There is no requirement to use THROW though.
So ciforth is standard in this respect.
In Core, ABORT" calls ABORT. In Exception Ext, ABORT does -1 THROW
and ABORT" does -2 THROW. No need there to call ABORT here.
In article <7dd80561-eab6-4d1b-b989-cb41b55819f9n@googlegroups.com>,
Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:14:04 AM UTC+2, none albert wrote:
Even worse, I have been roaming in the 2nd floor. ;-)I have made ABORT" a loadable extension in ciforth.
(ABORT" behind a long forgotten exception frame..)
If you intend to use it, you better mean it.
All fun on a sticky - in 4tH ABORT does just that: it quits, no questions asked.
Which IMHO is logical - if you want to quit, quit. If you wanted to get CAUGHT,
you would have THROWn an exception. So - if you use ABORT" in 4tH, it
shows a message on stdout and goes bye-bye.
Same in ciforth. The standard *allows* to execute ABORT by -1 THROW ,
but you and I agree that makes no sense.
By the way you can't then you use ABORT as a factor of ABORT" because
ABORT" must use -2 as the exception number!
<SNIP>
ABORT is an entry point for the system, in TURNKEY it is revectored
to execute whatever the turnkey has to do.
For the functionality both ABORT and QUIT are misnomers.
the.bee...@gmail.com schrieb am Samstag, 2. Juli 2022 um 22:42:51 UTC+2:No - the standard explicitly states that when the THROW code is minus two, the core version of ABORT has to be performed.
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 8:10:58 PM UTC+2, none albert wrote:
In article <3f483a76-f41b-4f5f...@googlegroups.com>,
Hans Bezemer <the.bee...@gmail.com> wrote:
-1 THROW performs Core ABORTThere is a difference between the Core and Exception Ext definitions.You're completely right - according to the standard, ABORT should be called. AndNot true. If the implementor decides to implement ABORT via a THROW than -1 is obligatory. There is no requirement to use THROW though.
according to the standard (Exception EXT) perform the function of -1 THROW.
So ciforth is standard in this respect.
In Core, ABORT" calls ABORT. In Exception Ext, ABORT does -1 THROW
and ABORT" does -2 THROW. No need there to call ABORT here.
-2 THROW performs Core ABORT" that performs Core ABORT
: program 1 abort" Let me out of here!" ;
: run
['] program catch -2 of
cr ." Sorry - ANS says no. Press a key." key drop recurse
then ;
Tested on gforth :)
Backtrace:then<<< ;
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 11:46:19 AM UTC+2, dxforth wrote:
[..]
: program 1 abort" Let me out of here!" ;
: run
['] program catch -2 of
cr ." Sorry - ANS says no. Press a key." key drop recurse
then ;
Tested on gforth :)
No, you didn't.
Gforth 0.7.0, Copyright (C) 1995-2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
We agree it makes no sense - however the "-1 THROW" is another wordset.Same in ciforth. The standard *allows* to execute ABORT by -1 THROW ,
but you and I agree that makes no sense.
Agreed again - I think I'd called them RESTART or something. However - asABORT is an entry point for the system, in TURNKEY it is revectored
to execute whatever the turnkey has to do.
For the functionality both ABORT and QUIT are misnomers.
That was your choice (or perhaps more accurately Fig-Forth's :)When I remember correctly the Forth-79's on the Sinclair Spectrum had entry points for WARM and COLD restarts - so you might not be too far off. I'd have to delve into the old assembler sources to confirm this, however.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 36:41:52 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,353,438 |