I’m selling a lot of Forth books on ebay if anyone’s interested.Not sure, if it's possible to buy two of them: I would be keen to get „Beginning Forth” and „Forth: The New Model”. If so — drop me a
I’m selling a lot of Forth books on ebay if anyone’s interested.Not sure, if it's possible to buy two of them: I would be keen to get „Beginning Forth” and „Forth: The New Model”. If so — drop me a line, please, on my e-mail.
To Mr. Pintaske: that second edition of „Starting Forth” could be worthy position of your „Forth shelf”. It's more „universal” for beginner readers
than first edition, being completed with comments and examples for
Forth-83 and fig-Forth. The first edition was, if I'm correct, poly-Forth-oriented.
To Mr. Pintaske: that second edition of „Starting Forth” could be worthy position of your „Forth shelf”. It's more „universal” for beginner readers
than first edition, being completed with comments and examples for
Forth-83 and fig-Forth. The first edition was, if I'm correct, poly-Forth-oriented.
On 11/08/2022 04:31, Zbig wrote:
To Mr. Pintaske: that second edition of „Starting Forth” could be worthyIn the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed? While
position of your „Forth shelf”. It's more „universal” for beginner readers
than first edition, being completed with comments and examples for Forth-83 and fig-Forth. The first edition was, if I'm correct, poly-Forth-oriented.
the later edition may be more useful, it's possible FI doesn't own the updated material. What does it say on the copyright page?
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:04:25 PM UTC-7, dxforth wrote:
On 11/08/2022 04:31, Zbig wrote:
In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text >> assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed? While
To Mr. Pintaske: that second edition of „Starting Forth” could be worthy
position of your „Forth shelf”. It's more „universal” for beginner readers
than first edition, being completed with comments and examples for
Forth-83 and fig-Forth. The first edition was, if I'm correct, poly-Forth-oriented.
the later edition may be more useful, it's possible FI doesn't own the
updated material. What does it say on the copyright page?
Sorry, not exactly sure what you're looking for.
On 11/08/2022 04:31, Zbig wrote:
To Mr. Pintaske: that second edition of „Starting Forth” could be worthyIn the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed? While
position of your „Forth shelf”. It's more „universal” for beginner readers
than first edition, being completed with comments and examples for Forth-83 and fig-Forth. The first edition was, if I'm correct, poly-Forth-oriented.
the later edition may be more useful, it's possible FI doesn't own the updated material. What does it say on the copyright page?
On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 04:04:25 UTC+1, dxforth wrote:
On 11/08/2022 04:31, Zbig wrote:
In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text >> assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed? While
To Mr. Pintaske: that second edition of „Starting Forth” could be worthy
position of your „Forth shelf”. It's more „universal” for beginner readers
than first edition, being completed with comments and examples for
Forth-83 and fig-Forth. The first edition was, if I'm correct, poly-Forth-oriented.
the later edition may be more useful, it's possible FI doesn't own the
updated material. What does it say on the copyright page?
Forth INC owns the copyright of Starting Forth.
Otherwise they could not have a full version on their website.
Otherwise they could not have gven me the OK to publish as eBook.
On 11/08/2022 16:18, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 04:04:25 UTC+1, dxforth wrote:
On 11/08/2022 04:31, Zbig wrote:
In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text
To Mr. Pintaske: that second edition of „Starting Forth” could be worthy
position of your „Forth shelf”. It's more „universal” for beginner readers
than first edition, being completed with comments and examples for
Forth-83 and fig-Forth. The first edition was, if I'm correct, poly-Forth-oriented.
assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed? While
the later edition may be more useful, it's possible FI doesn't own the
updated material. What does it say on the copyright page?
Forth INC owns the copyright of Starting Forth.They gave you the rights to publish the 1st edition which was written
Otherwise they could not have a full version on their website.
Otherwise they could not have gven me the OK to publish as eBook.
at a time Brodie was still an employee.
What does it say on the copyright page?
In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed?
What does it say on the copyright page?
The second edition is copyrighted by Prentice-Hall, Inc.
„Forth Inc.” is mentioned just as co-author(?).
In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text
assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed?
No, the second edition shows examples (and words) prepared for Forth 83, with footnotes explaining how to modify them for fig-Forth and „older systems”Forth-83 is quite sparse cf. polyForth. So 2nd ed. no longer has M+ M/ M* M*/ etc. ?
(poly-Forth?).
In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text >> assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed?
No, the second edition shows examples (and words) prepared for Forth 83,
with footnotes explaining how to modify them for fig-Forth and „older systems”
(poly-Forth?).
Forth-83 is quite sparse cf. polyForth. So 2nd ed. no longer has M+ M/ M* M*/ etc. ?In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text >>>> assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed?
No, the second edition shows examples (and words) prepared for Forth 83, >>> with footnotes explaining how to modify them for fig-Forth and „older systems”
(poly-Forth?).
They are listed (page 158).
They are listed (page 158).Hopefully they're listed as not Forth-83.
Is MOD signed?
They are listed (page 158).Hopefully they're listed as not Forth-83.
There isn't in every single case a remark which standard is presented;
they are listed just as „mixed-length operators”.
Is MOD signed?
No such description. Just a remark: „In the Forth-83 standard, in all
of Forth's division operators, the quotient is floored”.
Brodie wrote in „Preface to the second edition”:
„[..] Since the first edition was published, the Forth-83 standard has been ratified and widely adopted. Upgrading the syntax of this book to that of
83 standard was the primary reason for undertaking this revision. [..]
there are still a lot of fig-Forth (Forth Interest Group) systems out there. In this edition, I've added footnotes that flag the major differences for those users [..]”
The stack comment should say. In the 1st edition:
MOD (u1 u2 -- u-rem)
*/MOD (u1 u2 u3 -- u-rem u-result)
Brodie wrote in „Preface to the second edition”:An unenviable task. Wonder how many conversion errors/omissions :)
„[..] Since the first edition was published, the Forth-83 standard has been
ratified and widely adopted. Upgrading the syntax of this book to that of 83 standard was the primary reason for undertaking this revision. [..] there are still a lot of fig-Forth (Forth Interest Group) systems out there.
In this edition, I've added footnotes that flag the major differences for those users [..]”
The stack comment should say. In the 1st edition:
MOD (u1 u2 -- u-rem)
*/MOD (u1 u2 u3 -- u-rem u-result)
It's changed to n-rem.
Brodie wrote in „Preface to the second edition”:An unenviable task. Wonder how many conversion errors/omissions :)
„[..] Since the first edition was published, the Forth-83 standard has been
ratified and widely adopted. Upgrading the syntax of this book to that of >>> 83 standard was the primary reason for undertaking this revision. [..]
there are still a lot of fig-Forth (Forth Interest Group) systems out there.
In this edition, I've added footnotes that flag the major differences for >>> those users [..]”
Jeff Bernstein offers the book — so it's an opportunity to count these errors. ;)
I recall being shown a 2nd edition at the time but didn't take much notice. From your description it's a curious oddity as it will always be compared against classic 1st edition. Today - definitely a collector's item. I'm guessing it came too late for many copies to have been sold.
They are listed (page 158).Hopefully they're listed as not Forth-83.
There isn't in every single case a remark which standard is presented;
they are listed just as „mixed-length operators”.
Is MOD signed?
No such description. Just a remark: „In the Forth-83 standard, in all
of Forth's division operators, the quotient is floored”.
The stack comment should say. In the 1st edition:
MOD (u1 u2 -- u-rem)
*/MOD (u1 u2 u3 -- u-rem u-result)
Brodie wrote in „Preface to the second edition”:
„[..] Since the first edition was published, the Forth-83 standard has been
ratified and widely adopted. Upgrading the syntax of this book to that of
83 standard was the primary reason for undertaking this revision. [..]
there are still a lot of fig-Forth (Forth Interest Group) systems out there. >> In this edition, I've added footnotes that flag the major differences for
those users [..]”
An unenviable task. Wonder how many conversion errors/omissions :)
In article <td7ca9$1m7i$1@gioia.aioe.org>, dxforth <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/08/2022 20:57, Zbig wrote:
They are listed (page 158).Hopefully they're listed as not Forth-83.
There isn't in every single case a remark which standard is presented;
they are listed just as „mixed-length operators”.
Is MOD signed?
No such description. Just a remark: „In the Forth-83 standard, in all
of Forth's division operators, the quotient is floored”.
The stack comment should say. In the 1st edition:
MOD (u1 u2 -- u-rem)
*/MOD (u1 u2 u3 -- u-rem u-result)
Brodie wrote in „Preface to the second edition”:
„[..] Since the first edition was published, the Forth-83 standard has been
ratified and widely adopted. Upgrading the syntax of this book to that of >>> 83 standard was the primary reason for undertaking this revision. [..]
there are still a lot of fig-Forth (Forth Interest Group) systems out there.
In this edition, I've added footnotes that flag the major differences for >>> those users [..]”
An unenviable task. Wonder how many conversion errors/omissions :)
The stack comments are wrong. All numbers are signed.
ISO 93 leaves the decision between floored and symmetric to the
implementor. Symmetric division is a mathematical abomination,
and in math modulo a negative number is shunned anyway.
There is no modern language (python, go) that uses symmetric.
There can be no 'best' division as goals differ.
There is no modern language (python, go) that uses symmetric.
UM* and M/MOD are the exceptions handling unsigned numbers.
These are necessary (in 16 bits forths) to print numbers of more than 16 bits.
M/MOD is non-standard and a misnomer coming from figForth (polyforth?)
and should start with an U.
albert@cherry.(none) (albert) writes:
There is no modern language (python, go) that uses symmetric.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulo_operation#In_programming_languages>
has 97 occurences of "truncated" (symmetric). Looking for languages
that are younger (more modern?) than Python, ActionScript, C#,
Clopjure, CoffeeScript, D, Dart and many others support symmetric
remainder; some of them support symmetric in addition to floored
(e.g., CoffeeScript) or Euclidean (Dart).
Nit picking. Number I/O.UM* and M/MOD are the exceptions handling unsigned numbers.
These are necessary (in 16 bits forths) to print numbers of more than 16 bits.
Why would one need UM* for printing numbers?
Why did you bring up M/MOD?It is a remnant of 80' figForth (polyforth?) that possibly
- anton
In article <2022Aug1...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,[..]
Anton Ertl <an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
UM* and M/MOD are the exceptions handling unsigned numbers.
These are necessary (in 16 bits forths) to print numbers of more than 16 bits.
Why would one need UM* for printing numbers?Nit picking. Number I/O.
Why did you bring up M/MOD?It is a remnant of 80' figForth (polyforth?) that possibly
lingers somewhere.
In article <2022Aug17.112518@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
albert@cherry.(none) (albert) writes:
There is no modern language (python, go) that uses symmetric.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulo_operation#In_programming_languages>
has 97 occurences of "truncated" (symmetric). Looking for languages
that are younger (more modern?) than Python, ActionScript, C#,
Clopjure, CoffeeScript, D, Dart and many others support symmetric
remainder; some of them support symmetric in addition to floored
(e.g., CoffeeScript) or Euclidean (Dart).
Supporting is something different. We have SM/REM.
Integer division has finally won over, and Python users
are free from worrying over FM/MOD and SM/REM.
( egcd is Knuth's Algorithm E, TAOCP, Fundamental Algorithms, page 15.
Extended Euclid's Algorithm; d = gcd(m,n) = a*m + b*n )
-marcel--
In article <ff24b509-a29d-4a5c...@googlegroups.com>,[..]
Marcel Hendrix <m...@iae.nl> wrote:
<SNIP>
( egcd is Knuth's Algorithm E, TAOCP, Fundamental Algorithms, page 15.\ For A B return C GCD where C*A+x*B=GCD
Extended Euclid's Algorithm; d = gcd(m,n) = a*m + b*n )
: XGCD 1 0 2SWAP BEGIN OVER /MOD OVER WHILE >R SWAP
2SWAP OVER R> * - SWAP 2SWAP REPEAT 2DROP NIP ;
C --> m , x --> n
You can can find x from the result of XGCD if you want.
I remember that Elizabeth Rather was upset over this implementation.
R 0 1 ( -- a b )BEGIN c R@ /MOD ( -- a b r q ) OVER
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 48:24:05 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,640 |
| Posted today: | 1 |