Minutes of the FIGGY BAR RT Conference.

Date: 02/01/90   Time: 22:32EST

Attendees:
[GARY-S]
[[Doug] D.PHILIPS2]
[[Kevin] APPERT]
[[Wil] W.BADEN1]
[V.STAMPS]

 Items discussed include: ForthNet loops, DO..LOOP in pseudo code,a (maybe)
  better way to address Standards issues - like no more CURRENT and CONTEXT !

Minutes:
<GARY-S> Sorry I'm late folks - you don't want to know
<[Kevin] APPERT> nope.  was on a higherplain to denver, as it happened
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> (I'm not a football fan, I was just curious).
<GARY-S> good group here anywho
<[Kevin] APPERT> I'm kinda suprised there was such a fuss over bowling
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Gary, you still don't like my posts, do you!  1/2 :-)
<GARY-S> How many Brncos are required to change a flat ?..
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> I give, how many?
<GARY-S> only one, but they all show up for a blow-out
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg
<GARY-S> Explain what it is I don't like ?
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> You don't port them!
<[Kevin] APPERT> why can't bronco's qb place phone calls himself (he needs help 
for it)?
<[Kevin] APPERT> because he can't find the receiver
<GARY-S> ooooooo
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> I saw de Silva's reply to my message and neither of my 
messages!
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> I suspect that you're still filtering on 'ForthNet' in any 
part of the header.
<GARY-S> what does your From say for you and for ForthNet ports
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> My personal from line is 'dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips)'.
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> ForthNets from line is 'ForthNet@willett.UUCP'
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Pfffft!
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Acckkk!
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> <Why, why, why did I ask about Football?>
<GARY-S> You don't know Kevin - but you'll learn
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Actually, forthnet's is 'ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet ...
 GEnie)' but I don't recall the exact wording.
<GARY-S> Mr. Appert is the pun jab of Forth
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Beginnings are such perilous times!
<GARY-S> I will try to be more careful - those are damn similar
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> And you're sliced bread?
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> I'm just going to change my 'Organization:' line to remove 
ForthNet.
<GARY-S> Stuff Forth ish ?
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Did you set a topic?
<[Kevin] APPERT> I but walk in the footsteps of greater Forthers/punsters than I
<GARY-S> Do NOT change again
<GARY-S> This week cfb will be VERY quiet and I will get the other end 
straightened
<GARY-S> Leonard occasionally challenges Kev for punny man
<GARY-S> Last week we were cussing/discussing FOR...NEXT vs DO...LOOP..
<GARY-S> want to continue or vault to a new subject ?
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Well, we were also talking about how to map
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> other languages control structures into Forth.
<GARY-S> You and Wil were
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> And Leonard and someone else.
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> But Len never got around to putting up a transcript.
<GARY-S> Len has posted a file on Pascal routines in Forth, though
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> What about vocabularies?  We didn't really get into them 
last time.
<GARY-S> Dave Weinstein was the other 'C'man at the helm last week
<GARY-S> comments ???
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> is here.
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Vocabularies?
<[Kevin] APPERT> bah. humbug
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Hi Wil.
<V.STAMPS> is here.
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> wot did I innerup?
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Nuttin
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> hi virgil.
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Hi
<V.STAMPS> HI
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> So, are vocabularies a dead topic?
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Then, who has an answer to DO ... LOOP in C?
<[Kevin] APPERT> I was looking thru National Instruments  catalog the other day.
  They have an Rs-232 <-> IEEE488 box with a forth-like language in RO
M.
<GARY-S> not much:We were digressing more than anything, and nothing 
suignificant
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Wil, you need to notice when current index - stop changes 
sign from when you started.
<GARY-S> Pardon me - what is a forth-like lan ?
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> disconnected.
<[Kevin] APPERT> it looks like Forth, I don't know what differences there are.  
There was a
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Direct manip of data on stack; a second stack; status 
determined by two values.
<D.PHILIPS2> is here.
<GARY-S> with reference to a LAN though ?
<[Kevin] APPERT> short : defintition
<[Kevin] APPERT> I typed LANGUAGE, are you dropping characters?
<GARY-S> apparently so
<GARY-S> carry-on
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Not in 'C', but I think I have pseudo-code for DO ... LOOP.
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> #define sign(x)  ((x) < 0 ? (-1) : 1)
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> int s = sign( index - limit );
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> for( ; s == sign( index - limit ); index += loop_incr) body;
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> I dont think so.
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> In fact I dont think it can be done with C's "for".
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> C's for is just a while loop!
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> DO...LOOP is a "do ... while (cond);" loop.
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Because of at least once execution semantics.
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Yes.
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> But even F83 ?DO...LOOP cannot be done as "for(...)"
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> (It's very windy here. Do everybody have bad connection tonite?
)
<GARY-S> No wind, but rain in torrents !
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Has there been any ANSI report uploaded?  I had talk with Jack 
Brown.
<GARY-S> Wil, Dr. John Wavrik has forwarded a suggestion I think has merit...
<GARY-S> Have various positions regarding the standard posted as prelude and 
then..
<GARY-S> have round-robin discussions in RTC's to publicly air them..
<GARY-S> he contends (correctly) no one person..
<GARY-S> can accurately present the pros/cons of the Standards effort in one 
1-hour RTC
<GARY-S> .
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Go for it.
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> But will the discussions get back to the TC?
<GARY-S> We need someone to solicit volunteer presenters
<GARY-S> yes - Dennis is running a log for E.Rather
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Has everybody heard: CONTEXT and CURRENT are out; DEFINITIONS 
-> ADDITIONS; VOCABULARY -> WORDLIST>
<GARY-S> WHY ? are they futzing with CURRENT and CONTEXT <sigh>
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> What goes around comes around.
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Wil, what did they do about the control constructs?
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Becuz different systems implement it differently; by choosing 
a new ...
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> word they can agree on its meaning.
<GARY-S> Dumb
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Nothing on control constructs.
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> I was told they kept expecting me to show up Friday or 
Saturday.
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Gary, this means that you can load the standard words on 
top of an existing implementation and still claim conformance (depending
on how strict they are
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> about namespace pollution).
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Right.
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> It strikes me that the names aren't super important, but 
the concepts they are representing are.
<GARY-S> Is Guy Kelly part of the TC ? Sure doesn't sound like anyone is 
abiding by Guy's no violence to the current implementation edict
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> There is no current implementation; there are many current 
implementations.
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Guy has not been active for more than a year.
<GARY-S> It shows
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> I wonder if anyone has looked at X3J11 to see when is the 
right time in the standards process to be involved in order to successfu
lly promulgate key ideas.  Too early and you get screwed by changes... too late 
and there isn't enough time/energy for rehashing 'old' issues.
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Take VOCABULARY: Forth 79, Forth 83, FigForth, PolyForth, 
Mach2 -- all different.
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> They voted that next meeting is the last for original 
proposals.
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> There is a theory that says having only a slight difference 
in meaning between two concepts is worse than having a vast difference
.  At least with new terms for vocabulary like stuff they'll avoid that trap.
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> January 91 is target for draft proposal.
<GARY-S> :No way will it make it
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Is there a set number of drafts before submission to X3?
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> No.
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> What is semantic diff. between BASIS and DRAFT?
<[Kevin] APPERT> until the objections die down, they have to continue iterating
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Fetus and baby.
<[Doug] D.PHILIPS2> Kevin, if they can 'vote' on 'no more original ideas', why 
can't they vote on 'X is going to be Y, too bad'?
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Becuz it has to be approved by the community.
<[Kevin] APPERT> ANSI requires that the noise level drop to essentially 0 
before the draft becomes a standard
<[Devil's Advo] D.PHILIPS2> Leave no turn unstoned.
<GARY-S> Kevin has already cast his vote - noncompliance regardless . Right 
Kevin
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Well said, Kevin.
<[Kevin] APPERT> they have to answer ALL objections in some fashion
<[Devil's Advo] D.PHILIPS2> As in "We've already considered your objection and 
have found it to be groundless." ?
<[Kevin] APPERT> I'm not a vendor, so I'm not compliant in any case (I don't 
even give 'em away)
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Yes.
<[Kevin] APPERT> there may turn out to be a certain amount of that Doug
<[Devil's Advo] D.PHILIPS2> What level, if any, of justification are they 
required by ANSI to give in their answers?
<[Kevin] APPERT> My favorite is " you don't understand the vast technical 
issues which justify us screwing you over in this bizzare fashion"
<[Kevin] APPERT> If ANSI gets a lot of letters objecting to heavy handed 
resolutions to objections, I would guess they will have second thoughts.  per
haps even if they get one or two
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Right.
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> That's what hapnd to Fortran 77.
<[Devil's Advo] D.PHILIPS2> How does new vocabulary stuff interact with 
multitasking, or doesn't std. address multitasking?
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Not as a language spec.  But PAUSE is presnt to accommodate.
<[Kevin] APPERT> Liz Rather stated that ALSO/ONLY is bad news for multi-tasking.
  She made a case for it's not being required word set
<[Devil's Advo] D.PHILIPS2> How long till the new basis will be available (i.e. 
printed?)
<[Devil's Advo] D.PHILIPS2> Kevin, if you can have multiple data/return stacks 
for muI~?~?litasking, why can't you have multiple dictionary stacks?
<[Kevin] APPERT> I guess I would say we shouldn't force anything (like 
also/only ) on anyone.  How 'bout we make the entire standard optional?
<[Devil's Advo] D.PHILIPS2> +0/STA
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> Indeterminable -- the chairman of that subcommittee resigned.
<[Kevin] APPERT> no reason except size, Doug
<GARY-S> Let me squeeze in my reminder that the February 15 guest conference 
will feature Steve Sarns and Steve Wheeler of Vesta Technologies discussi
ng Embedded Forth Systems
<[Devil's Advo] D.PHILIPS2> The only real difficulty is serializing updates to 
the dictionaries.
<[Devil's Advo] D.PHILIPS2> But lightweight processes don't want to be too 
independant.
<[Kevin] APPERT> I've had a painfull impacted Forth system I've been wanting to 
get removed...
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> So no one has DO...LOOP in C.  Did anyone try?
<[Devil's Advo] D.PHILIPS2> Nastly line noise, +0BRB.
<[Kevin] APPERT> I have a C compiler around here someplace.  I don't want to 
get all that dust in my floppy drive, though
<[Wil] W.BADEN1> It duznt hav to work.
<[Kevin] APPERT> like most C code
<GARY-S> it doesn't apparently
<[Devil's Adv.] D.PHILIPS2> Sigh.  Missed another good question.
<GARY-S> well - tonite there doesn't appear to be a hot discussion to interrupt,
 so any last shots
<[Devil's Adv.] D.PHILIPS2> I guess no one saw, or reacted to de Silva's 
anti-CM posts.  Bye.
<GARY-S> ...* poof
=== End of Steno notes. ===