May 2006 - Oberon - mailman3.inf.ethz.ch

{Oberon] Linux port of Bluebottle
by paul provoost 25 Aug '06

25 Aug '06

Hi all, I am also interested in a Linux port of Bluebottle. Anyone else? Who could do such a port? P. Provoost. The Netherlands. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Search, for accurate results! http://search.msn.nl

4 5

Copy N-O's html-with-images to other box ?
by easlab＠absamail.co.za 27 May '06

27 May '06

My linux-oberon box's resolution is set nicely to view htmls with embedded diagrams, which previously were not viewable, on a VGA resolution - which gives about 80 chars Oberon10.Scn.Fnt in the UserTrack. The way the images are embedded in the frame is somewhat complicated [for me]. 1. A downloaded [per nameplate] http:\\* with 3 nice diagrams in the text was, 2. renamed to SRC, and 3. opening as SRC showed the frame = good, Then I 4. Backup.WriteFiles SRC ~ and moved the 'file' to my linux box. 5. Opening SRC [by Mouse:M,R in a Desktop, equivalent to Desktops.OpenDoc SRC] crashed linux oberon; which may be unrelated to my question, of how to move html-with-images. As I remember it has to do with deep & shallow copying ? Can I move the 'objects containing text & images' to my linux-oberon box ? Any info/advice appreciated. Thanks, == Chris Glur.

1 0

CAP and recursion
by Roger Keller 26 May '06

26 May '06

>> I'll guess that load (x); puts the character in >> a register in the cpu. Would be interesting to >> understand how MakeCon and Gen3 work to upcase a >> character. > Complier writing is a whole science in itself. > Do you really want to go there ? as much as i could see (and i have to admit, that right now, i'm not completely aware of all the ascii-codes), Gen3 was used to generate an "and" of basically the input value (the character x) and 5fH ... iirc, this just unmasks bits 5 & 7 (the latter, as we all know, is always 0 in the original ascii table). bit 5 is then just the difference between an upper case letter and a lower case letter. unmasking it with an "and" means to remove it and therefore make an uppercase letter from a lower case letter. however, this also transforms some non-alphabetic characters (e.g. '{' -> '[') ... as one can see, this is no rocket science. it's just a very little bit of arithmetic cheers, roger

1 0

Need par-port Tx/Rx & buffers algorithm.
by easlab＠absamail.co.za 26 May '06

26 May '06

This relates to my previous post, in that, if a tool existed which assisted 'copying over' code from other languages [Ie. by eliminating the trivail but essential syntax differences] then I/we could quickly hack-together trivial-aps. like what I need now: a pair [or combined] of routines to transfer files between 2 ETH-oberon boxes, via parallel-port - presumably nyble-wide data path. Preferably written to be easily transformed/extended for a serial-port. Linux-Oberon has no V24 module. It apparently uses linux's serial driver[s] ? Amazing that it acheives the N-O look and feel so well. All older PCs have par-ports. Using 2 network cards to move data on a 2 point route over 4 meters is absurd. There's no networking to do ! I have to keep my old-standard N-O box [with multiple partitions/topics] running while I evolve and move stuff to the linux-oberon box. The old box doesn't do USB and Backup.* can cause N-O to fail. Besides AFAIK linux-oberon lacks Backup.Obj, which is OK since Linux can do fd0. Only the par-port is conveniently free. There must be countless [student exercise] listings of C or Pascal 'Tx/RX by par-port with buffer' routines. Can someone help me, Please ? Or even oberon code ;-) In connection with the lack of libraries, I'm in principle against 'oldies' continually redesigning the same algorithms repeatedly ! == Chris Glur.

1 0

CAP and recursion
by easlab＠absamail.co.za 26 May '06

26 May '06

> c> what language is this ? > Peter wrote: > Oberon, directly out of PC Native 05.01.2003. > I wrongly speculated that the code which you listed, was some separate dialect embedded in the compiler. Like Layla is embedded in Oberon. This reconfirms a pet topic of mine: the problem of chaos/confusion from language/dialect proliferation. Eg. lately there seems to be multiple ways of representing `char(') `. Apparently mime handles it in email ? Because my simple N-O email-client doesn't do mime, [using unix oberon will solve that ?], I get many strange chars, including eg. "=3D" for `char(=) `. Of course I know about the " ^ pointer dereferencing" concept, but I thought [wrongly] that this was another of the C-like potentially dangerous facilities removed for Oberon simplification. Fortunately [which is nowhere the situation with my linux/C system] I was easily able to search/confirm: <Partition>NoDocm > *ort* > OberonReport.html > Oberon Language Report. Which confirmed that "^" IS part of the syntax. Previously I made a similar mistake, in [absurdly] concluding that Oberon couldn't do recursion, since test code, where I omitted the empty arg-list-brackets, eg. "funct()", [no brackets requires in pascal for no args - as I remember?], gave error mesgs. suggesting [to me] that recursion capabilty had been removed for simplification. My point being, that a tool [perhaps even if only heuristic, like [linux] vim's colouring of key-words & structures, or Bablefish's assistance attempts] the help QUICKLY separate the syntax of the many, sometimes often closely related, languages, would be very useful. And I speculate that it could be extented towards a [type of] syntax-editor; for any/all of the languages. Examples of great N-O tools which help navigate potential confusion are Watson & Columbus ? John Stout wrote: > This is NOT a recursive definition. It would only be a recursive definition > if the procedure within which it is called is called CAP and had the same > signature, i.e., CAP(CHAR):CHAR. This further confirms my confusion. Does the familiar java concept of "compiler selecting the target proc. based also on matching 'arg-signature' - apparently needed for polymorphism, also apply to oberon ? Ie. the 2 calls: Do(4, dogs) ; Do(4, cats) would call 2 different proc-implimentations, based on the 2 different types: dogs & cats; and hence signature of the args:(4, dogs), (4, cats). Of couse we can't avoid being influenced [and confused] by the other 'strange' languages - a type of globalisation. As previously noted, we should seek potential advantages, like riding on the back of linux & it's tens of thousands of contributors, eg. with linux-oberon ;-). Peter wrote: > I'll guess that load (x); puts the character in > a register in the cpu. Would be interesting to > understand how MakeCon and Gen3 work to upcase a > character. Complier writing is a whole science in itself. Do you really want to go there ? If the brilliantly optimised compiler is 10 times faster, and my previous complilation of 100 mSec is reduced to 10 mSec, then you've saved me 90 mSecs. A [even if only heuristic initially - which could be refined over time] tool to help 'translate' "funny N-O [set based] asm-language/syntax" to a more intuitive syntax, would be more valuable. Yes, ETH's function is to do bleeding-edge research, but we outside contributors should perhaps try to solve the problem, dating back to the previous millenium, that even now with new releases, if you manually transfer [ie. human read/write] a URL containing the underscore char, you will fail ! Thanks, == Chris Glur.

1 0

Re: [Oberon] CAP ...
by shark＠gulfnet.sd64.bc.ca 24 May '06

24 May '06

Thomas, Chris, John, c> what language is this ? Oberon, directly out of PC Native 05.01.2003. j> ... so that there is no recursion at all, even indirectly. OK thanks. t> This is just the compile time evaluation of a "CAP" of a constant ... I have that part of the picture now. OPC.Mod has a Cap. Perhaps it is the built-in CAP. PROCEDURE Cap* (VAR z, x: Item); (* z := CAP (x) *) VAR c: Item; BEGIN MakeCon (c, OPT.chartyp, 5FH); load (x); Gen3 (and, z, x, c) END Cap; I'll guess that load (x); puts the character in a register in the cpu. Would be interesting to understand how MakeCon and Gen3 work to upcase a character. Thanks, ... Peter Desktops.OpenDoc http://carnot.pathology.ubc.ca/

2 1

CAP and recursion
by John Stout 22 May '06

22 May '06

> I want to understand the "built in" functions (if that is the correct terminology) better. > CAP( ) for example. Appears it is defined in OPB.Mod. Ie. > > | cap: > IF f = Char THEN > IF z^.class = Nconst THEN > z^.conval^.intval := ORD(CAP(CHR(z^.conval^.intval))); > z^.obj := NIL > ELSE z := NewOp(op, typ, z) > END > ELSE err(111); z^.typ := OPT.chartyp > END > > Can anyone shed a little light on this? > With ORD(CAP(CHR(z^.conval^.intval))) > present, how is this not a recursive definition? This is NOT a recursive definition. It would only be a recursive definition if the procedure within which it is called is called CAP and had the same signature, i.e., CAP(CHAR):CHAR. It isn't: it's inside a procedure called MOp*(SHORTINT;VAR OPT.Node); so that there is no recursion at all, even indirectly. I think you are confusing the code that is being generated by the compiler when it compiles CAP(variable) and the code that is executing when the compiler compiles CAP(variable). There is no code generated when CAP(constant) is compiled: the integer representation of the character being converted is replaced by the integer representation of the CAP of the character being replaced in the code-tree being created. The CHR is necessary to tell the compiler that CAP is receiving a CHAR and not an INTEGER (.intval) and the ORD 'converts' back the CHAR that CAP returns to the INTEGER form (.intval). John Stout -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release Date: 18/05/2006

1 0

library & recursion & ^
by easlab＠absamail.co.za 22 May '06

22 May '06

Original 'Subject:' text lost due to new-age emailing methods. On 5/19/06, shark(a)gulfnet.sd64.bc.ca <shark(a)gulfnet.sd64.bc.ca> wrote: > I want to understand the "built in" functions > (if that is the correct terminology) better. > CAP( ) for example. Appears it is defined in > OPB.Mod. Ie. > > | cap: > IF f = Char THEN > IF z^.class = Nconst THEN > z^.conval^.intval := ORD(CAP(CHR(z^.conval^.intval))); > z^.obj := NIL > ELSE z := NewOp(op, typ, z) > END > ELSE err(111); z^.typ := OPT.chartyp > END > > Can anyone shed a little light on this? > With ORD(CAP(CHR(z^.conval^.intval))) > present, how is this not a recursive definition? Thomas wrote: T] This is just the compile time evaluation of a "CAP" of a constant T] value in the source code like e.g. "CAP('x')". This offline evaluation T] is of course more efficient than loading the constant at run time and T] then performing the capitalization. The result of the evaluation is T] copied into the object file but not the code to perform the evaluation T] at run time. T] The use "ORD(CAP(CHR(z^.conval^.intval)))" is not really recursive, it T] is just the compiler using CAP to evaluate a constant CAP in the T] source code. Normally (for variables) the z := NewOp(op, typ, z) T] branch is taken and the evaluation code for CAP is compiled into the T] This raises several questions: Q1. what language is this ? Looks a bit like pascal. Has Aos/Blue-bottle introduced more new syntax ? "The result of the evaluation" suggest that this syntax applies only to the 'compiler' as explained above - no ? Q2. why does Thomas post emails by base64 decoding ? Am I missing more of the advantages of modern methods ? The funny-stuff coming by email these days [eg. multiple decodings for char(<quote/single & double>)] makes the arrival of unix-ETH-oberon very fortunate. Since the N-O inet tools require extra text processing to restore plain text [as existed years back with no problems]. Certainly defining CAP(arg) as ORD(CAP(CHR(z^.conval^.intval))) is a 'recursive definition'. And in natural-language/logic that is inadmissible. But the code shown, has the 'exit-branch' ELSE z := NewOp(op, typ, z). So the code only recurs as long as z^.class = Nconst is satisfied, and then 'unwinds' the recursion when the ELSE {z^.class 'is NOT' Nconst}; condition exists, which is how recursion works in computing. Ie. there must be an exit route/branch to stop the recursion. == Chris Glur. PS. re. need linux inet tools for use with linux-ETH-oberon, I've just discovered pan: the Newsreader clone of Agent. IMO Agent was the best [most intuitive] news reader. Do any other readers use pan ? My version [with FC1] seems a bit slow & cluncky. But the web-site seems to suggest that no updates were made for a long time. PSS. pan is similar to mc as an example of cloning good 'panel-based' applications from other OSs ?

1 0

"built in" functions
by shark＠gulfnet.sd64.bc.ca 19 May '06

19 May '06

I want to understand the "built in" functions (if that is the correct terminology) better. CAP( ) for example. Appears it is defined in OPB.Mod. Ie. | cap: IF f = Char THEN IF z^.class = Nconst THEN z^.conval^.intval := ORD(CAP(CHR(z^.conval^.intval))); z^.obj := NIL ELSE z := NewOp(op, typ, z) END ELSE err(111); z^.typ := OPT.chartyp END Can anyone shed a little light on this? With ORD(CAP(CHR(z^.conval^.intval))) present, how is this not a recursive definition? Thanks, ... Peter E. Desktops.OpenDoc http://carnot.pathology.ubc.ca/

1 0

Re: [Oberon] "built in" functions
by Thomas Frey 19 May '06

19 May '06

On 5/19/06, shark(a)gulfnet.sd64.bc.ca <shark(a)gulfnet.sd64.bc.ca> wrote: > I want to understand the "built in" functions > (if that is the correct terminology) better. > CAP( ) for example. Appears it is defined in > OPB.Mod. Ie. > > | cap: > IF f = Char THEN > IF z^.class = Nconst THEN > z^.conval^.intval := ORD(CAP(CHR(z^.conval^.intval))); z^.obj := NIL > ELSE z := NewOp(op, typ, z) > END > ELSE err(111); z^.typ := OPT.chartyp > END > > Can anyone shed a little light on this? > With ORD(CAP(CHR(z^.conval^.intval))) > present, how is this not a recursive definition? This is just the compile time evaluation of a "CAP" of a constant value in the source code like e.g. "CAP('x')". This offline evaluation is of course more efficient than loading the constant at run time and then performing the capitalization. The result of the evaluation is copied into the object file but not the code to perform the evaluation at run time. The use "ORD(CAP(CHR(z^.conval^.intval)))" is not really recursive, it is just the compiler using CAP to evaluate a constant CAP in the source code. Normally (for variables) the z := NewOp(op, typ, z) branch is taken and the evaluation code for CAP is compiled into the object file. --Thomas

1 0