forth200x at Yahoo! Groups

Re: SIZE RfD

BruceMcF — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:58:38 GMT

Hugh Aguilar , Tue, Feb 9, 2010 3:24 pm ... that ... ... that is, storing it in each instance of each type of node rather than in a

Re: SIZE RfD

Hugh Aguilar — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:25:00 GMT

________________________________ From: Leon Wagner To: forth200x@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, February 8, 2010 12:16:21 PM Subject: RE:

Other Standards ( was Re: SIZE RfD )

Doug Hoffman — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:25:47 GMT

... I am the usual suspect. But no worries, that's all over now. There isn't (essentially has never been) even an RfD. Sorry if any of it caused you

Re: SIZE RfD

BruceMcF — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:20:49 GMT

... An obvious use would be to be to avoid doing a RESIZE when there is sufficient space already allocated. But in a system where allocations have been rounded

Re: SIZE RfD

Leon Wagner — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:16:22 GMT

... I have the following issues with this response: 1) The RfD as submitted (or the alternatives proposed in the discussion) do not address the implementation

Re: SIZE RfD

Mitch Bradley — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:06:11 GMT

... No, I am telling you that a) ALLOCATED does not provide any new capability, because an application can provide the functionality trivially if it needs it.

Re: SIZE RfD

Hugh Aguilar — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:05:15 GMT

Are you telling us that you don't believe that anybody would ever want to have multiple data types represented in a linked list??? I find your post to be

Word Classes

Jenny — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 14:25:06 GMT

Word Classes are used in several non-Standard Forths (and naturally they are all different). I'm not arguing that any of the following should be included in

Re: SIZE RfD

Mitch Bradley — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:24:12 GMT

Wow, it is just amazing how much traffic this proposal has generated, especially in relation to its overall (approximately nil) value.

Re: SIZE RfD

BruceMcF — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:19:54 GMT

Just be sure not to keep the reversal of the plain meanings of the words in the RfD. An allocation refers to the amount provided, not the amount requested. And

Re: SIZE RfD

Bernd Paysan — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:32:26 GMT

... Yes, that's IMHO the actual point of this discussion. As I said, I use this rarely (even though bigForth's allocator implements it as natural factor for

Re: SIZE RfD

Anton Ertl — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:22:21 GMT

... ALLOCATION would be a valid implementation of ALLOCATED. ALLOCATION gives the additional guarantee that the number u you get back is exactly the number u

Re: SIZE RfD

BruceMcF — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:14:27 GMT

Jorge Acereda , Wed, Feb 3, 2010 8:07 pm ... when ... Yes, if there is code that relies on a specific feature of a specific ALLOCATE beyond

Re: SIZE RfD

Jorge Acereda — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:07:24 GMT

... I'm not sure I understood your mail. If you are using a platform where malloc() returns addresses aligned to 16 bytes boundary and your ALLOCATE puts the

Re: SIZE RfD

BruceMcF — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:33:35 GMT

Somehow ALLOCATION, the *amount* allocated, and ALLOCATED, the *past tense* of ALLOCATE, have been turned around here ... ... but in any event, the following