Hi all, trying to reverse order, I'm working of the stack although I will be using a file and buffer for the end result, I created what seem like the logical word defines as:

: REVERSE ( i*x i -- i*y ) 0 DO I DUP ROLL . LOOP ;

Here is the interactive successions ( or is that frustration :D )
At fist I was missing a character, then it all was weird...

Thoughts... I leave the interactive session for the enjoyment of the gurus! :D
..S <0> ok
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
..S <10> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
: REVERSE ( i*x i -- i*y ) 0 DO I DUP ROLL . LOOP ; redefined REVERSE ok
REVERSE 0 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ok
..s <9> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ok
: REVERSE ( i*x i -- i*y ) 0 DO I DUP ROLL . DROP LOOP ; redefined REVERSE ok
abort
:148: Aborted
>>>abort<<<
Backtrace:
$7F8B79A03A78 throw
..S <0> ok
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
..S <10> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
REVERSE 0 7 5 3 1
:152: Stack underflow
>>>REVERSE<<<
Backtrace:
$7F8B79A031D0 swap
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$2
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$4
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$6
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$5
$7F8B79A57178 roll
$5
$9
: REVERSE ( i*x i -- i*y ) 0 DO I ROLL . LOOP ; redefined REVERSE ok
..S <0> ok
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
REVERSE 8 6 4 2 0
:156: Stack underflow
>>>REVERSE<<<
Backtrace:
$7F8B79A031A0 swap
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$1
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$3
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$5
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$7
$7F8B79A57208 roll
$5
$9
..S <0> ok
ok
ok
ok
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
REVERSE 8 6 4 2 0
:162: Stack underflow
>>>REVERSE<<<
Backtrace:
$7F8B79A031A0 swap
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$1
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$3
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$5
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$7
$7F8B79A57208 roll
$5
$9
: REVERSE ( i*x i -- i*y ) 0 DO I DUP ROLL . DROP LOOP ; redefined REVERSE ok
ok
ok
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
REVERSE 0 7 5 3 1
:167: Stack underflow
>>>REVERSE<<<
Backtrace:
$7F8B79A031D0 swap
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$2
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$4
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$6
$7F8B79A031C0 roll
$5
$7F8B79A57298 roll
$5
$9
ok
ok
ok
ok
bye

Le jeudi 24 août 2023 à 13:15:48 UTC+2, SpainHackForth a écrit :
> Hi all, trying to reverse order, I'm working of the stack although I will be using a file and buffer for the end result, I created what seem like the logical word defines as:
>
> : REVERSE ( i*x i -- i*y ) 0 DO I DUP ROLL . LOOP ;
>
> Here is the interactive successions ( or is that frustration :D )
> At fist I was missing a character, then it all was weird...
>
> Thoughts... I leave the interactive session for the enjoyment of the gurus! :D
> .S <0> ok
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
> .S <10> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
> : REVERSE ( i*x i -- i*y ) 0 DO I DUP ROLL . LOOP ; redefined REVERSE ok
> REVERSE 0 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ok
> .s <9> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ok
> : REVERSE ( i*x i -- i*y ) 0 DO I DUP ROLL . DROP LOOP ; redefined REVERSE ok
> abort
> :148: Aborted
> >>>abort<<<
> Backtrace:
> $7F8B79A03A78 throw
> .S <0> ok
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
> .S <10> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
> REVERSE 0 7 5 3 1
> :152: Stack underflow
> >>>REVERSE<<<
> Backtrace:
> $7F8B79A031D0 swap
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $2
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $4
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $6
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $5
> $7F8B79A57178 roll
> $5
> $9
> : REVERSE ( i*x i -- i*y ) 0 DO I ROLL . LOOP ; redefined REVERSE ok
> .S <0> ok
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
> REVERSE 8 6 4 2 0
> :156: Stack underflow
> >>>REVERSE<<<
> Backtrace:
> $7F8B79A031A0 swap
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $1
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $3
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $5
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $7
> $7F8B79A57208 roll
> $5
> $9
> .S <0> ok
> ok
> ok
> ok
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
> REVERSE 8 6 4 2 0
> :162: Stack underflow
> >>>REVERSE<<<
> Backtrace:
> $7F8B79A031A0 swap
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $1
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $3
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $5
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $7
> $7F8B79A57208 roll
> $5
> $9
> : REVERSE ( i*x i -- i*y ) 0 DO I DUP ROLL . DROP LOOP ; redefined REVERSE ok
> ok
> ok
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
> REVERSE 0 7 5 3 1
> :167: Stack underflow
> >>>REVERSE<<<
> Backtrace:
> $7F8B79A031D0 swap
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $2
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $4
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $6
> $7F8B79A031C0 roll
> $5
> $7F8B79A57298 roll
> $5
> $9
> ok
> ok
> ok
> ok
> bye

I think you just forget to check the stack depth

clearstack ok
ok
ok
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 \ last is 9 ok 10
.. 9 ok 9
: rev depth 0 do I roll loop ; ok 9
rev ok 9
\ should go 0 1 2 .. ok 9
.. . . . 0 1 2 3 ok 5

On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 1:48:50 PM UTC+2, gobli...@gmail.com wrote:

> clearstack ok
> ok
> ok
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 \ last is 9 ok 10
> . 9 ok 9
> : rev depth 0 do I roll loop ; ok 9
> rev ok 9
> \ should go 0 1 2 .. ok 9
> . . . . 0 1 2 3 ok 5
Well,

I was trying to do something simple on the stack, I would use a buffer like:
VARIABLE REVERSE-BUFFER

: REVERSE-STACK ( -- )
DEPTH REVERSE-BUFFER ALLOT \ Allocate memory for the buffer

DEPTH 0 DO
I -1 * REVERSE-BUFFER + !
LOOP ;

: USE-REVERSED-ORDER ( -- )
REVERSE-BUFFER DEPTH 0 DO
I REVERSE-BUFFER + @ .
LOOP ;

I've not tried that, just meta from what I'm considering... Just the different results even though the stack was clear is what is troubling me.

: revs
depth >r
depth cells allot
depth 0 do here i cells - ! loop
r> 0 do here i cells - @ loop
depth cells negate allot
;

> : revs
> depth >r
> depth cells allot
> depth 0 do here i cells - ! loop
> r> 0 do here i cells - @ loop
> depth cells negate allot
> ;

Oh, but actually why allocating anything for that brief moment?
It can be shorter:

: reverse-stack ( -- )
depth dup >r 0 do here i cells + ! loop
r> 0 do here i cells + @ loop ;

On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 4:05:43 PM UTC+2, Zbig wrote:
> > : revs
> > depth >r
> > depth cells allot
> > depth 0 do here i cells - ! loop
> > r> 0 do here i cells - @ loop
> > depth cells negate allot
> > ;
> Oh, but actually why allocating anything for that brief moment?
> It can be shorter:
>
> : reverse-stack ( -- )
> depth dup >r 0 do here i cells + ! loop
> r> 0 do here i cells + @ loop ;
I just tried it, it is the same as my initial issue, it misses the "9" on the stack....

: reverse-stack ( -- ) compiled
depth dup >r 0 do here i cells + ! loop compiled
r> 0 do here i cells + @ loop ; ok
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
reverse-stack ok
..S <10> 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ok

czwartek, 24 sierpnia 2023 o 17:29:38 UTC+2 SpainHackForth napisał(a):
> On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 4:05:43 PM UTC+2, Zbig wrote:
> > > : revs
> > > depth >r
> > > depth cells allot
> > > depth 0 do here i cells - ! loop
> > > r> 0 do here i cells - @ loop
> > > depth cells negate allot
> > > ;
> > Oh, but actually why allocating anything for that brief moment?
> > It can be shorter:
> >
> > : reverse-stack ( -- )
> > depth dup >r 0 do here i cells + ! loop
> > r> 0 do here i cells + @ loop ;
> I just tried it, it is the same as my initial issue, it misses the "9" on the stack....
>
> : reverse-stack ( -- ) compiled
> depth dup >r 0 do here i cells + ! loop compiled
> r> 0 do here i cells + @ loop ; ok
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
> reverse-stack ok
> .S <10> 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ok

It doesn't missing anything; Gforth displays just the nine
„highest” values from the stack. You didn't notice „ten” in
triangles directly before value list? It displays the stack's depth.

On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 5:45:04 PM UTC+2, Zbig wrote:
If your compiler uses the return stack as an actual return stack, you can try this:

Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `license'
Type `help' for basic help
: reverse begin dup while 1- swap r> swap >r >r repeat drop ; ok
: test 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 reverse r> . r> . r> . r> . r> . r> . ; ok
ok
test 1 2 3 4 5 6 ok

Hans Bezemer

czwartek, 24 sierpnia 2023 o 18:02:54 UTC+2 Hans Bezemer napisał(a):
> On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 5:45:04 PM UTC+2, Zbig wrote:
> If your compiler uses the return stack as an actual return stack, you can try this:
>
> Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `license'
> Type `help' for basic help
> : reverse begin dup while 1- swap r> swap >r >r repeat drop ; ok
> : test 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 reverse r> . r> . r> . r> . r> . r> . ; ok
> ok
> test 1 2 3 4 5 6 ok

Type `bye' to exit
: reverse begin dup while 1- swap r> swap >r >r repeat drop ; ok
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 ok
reverse ok
..s <9> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok

„Houston…”

On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 6:06:56 PM UTC+2, Zbig wrote:
> „Houston…”

Untrue - you're making an error: ( i*x i -- i*y )

The number of elements to be reverse has to be correct- which isn't the case:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 ok
reverse ok

Since you specify ZERO elements.

Hans Bezemer

On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 5:45:04 PM UTC+2, Zbig wrote:
> czwartek, 24 sierpnia 2023 o 17:29:38 UTC+2 SpainHackForth napisał(a):
> > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 4:05:43 PM UTC+2, Zbig wrote:
> > > > : revs
> > > > depth >r
> > > > depth cells allot
> > > > depth 0 do here i cells - ! loop
> > > > r> 0 do here i cells - @ loop
> > > > depth cells negate allot
> > > > ;
> > > Oh, but actually why allocating anything for that brief moment?
> > > It can be shorter:
> > >
> > > : reverse-stack ( -- )
> > > depth dup >r 0 do here i cells + ! loop
> > > r> 0 do here i cells + @ loop ;
> > I just tried it, it is the same as my initial issue, it misses the "9" on the stack....
> >
> > : reverse-stack ( -- ) compiled
> > depth dup >r 0 do here i cells + ! loop compiled
> > r> 0 do here i cells + @ loop ; ok
> > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
> > reverse-stack ok
> > .S <10> 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ok
> It doesn't missing anything; Gforth displays just the nine
> „highest” values from the stack. You didn't notice „ten” in
> triangles directly before value list? It displays the stack's depth.
Really? Man, the rat holes I have been trough... I did not know that...

Oh, sorry — indeed I should've create appropriate 'test' word,
but — you know — I dare to to judge my solution being not as
brilliant, but somewhat more practical.
By adding at the beginning one more line as „security fuse” it
accepts any stack depth and it doesn't require any „special”
words to get the job done:

: reverse-stack ( -- )
depth 0= if ." Nothing to reverse; the stack is empty" exit then
depth dup >r 0 do here i cells + ! loop
r> 0 do here i cells + @ loop ;

> > nine „highest” values from the stack. You didn't notice „ten” in
> > triangles directly before value list? It displays the stack's depth.
> Really? Man, the rat holes I have been trough... I did not know that...

Just enter twelve values and then type the usual „.S”… :D

> Really? Man, the rat holes I have been trough... I did not know that...

It's worth to take a peek into „F… ine Manual” sometimes. Consider
one more example:

Gforth:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ok
..s <12> 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ok
pForth:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ok
Stack<10> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

So twelve values, but pForth says „ten” in triangles. A bug?
Something wrong on the stack? No!
Just pForth reports in triangles the current BASE (in decimal),
not the stack's depth. Have a look:
hex ok
Stack<16> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C

On 25/08/2023 2:26 am, SpainHackForth wrote:
> On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 5:45:04 PM UTC+2, Zbig wrote:
>> czwartek, 24 sierpnia 2023 o 17:29:38 UTC+2 SpainHackForth napisał(a):
>>> On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 4:05:43 PM UTC+2, Zbig wrote:
>>>>> : revs
>>>>> depth >r
>>>>> depth cells allot
>>>>> depth 0 do here i cells - ! loop
>>>>> r> 0 do here i cells - @ loop
>>>>> depth cells negate allot
>>>>> ;
>>>> Oh, but actually why allocating anything for that brief moment?
>>>> It can be shorter:
>>>>
>>>> : reverse-stack ( -- )
>>>> depth dup >r 0 do here i cells + ! loop
>>>> r> 0 do here i cells + @ loop ;
>>> I just tried it, it is the same as my initial issue, it misses the "9" on the stack....
>>>
>>> : reverse-stack ( -- ) compiled
>>> depth dup >r 0 do here i cells + ! loop compiled
>>> r> 0 do here i cells + @ loop ; ok
>>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ok
>>> reverse-stack ok
>>> .S <10> 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ok
>> It doesn't missing anything; Gforth displays just the nine
>> „highest” values from the stack. You didn't notice „ten” in
>> triangles directly before value list? It displays the stack's depth.
> Really? Man, the rat holes I have been trough... I did not know that...

The computer knows what's good for you - don't question it.
Apparently today's calculators are like this. I'll find out soon
enough having just ordered one :)