約 3,442,356 件
https://w.atwiki.jp/kyokotan/pages/25.html
「超能力者とか言ったな」 「ええ、あたしたちはまた違う名称をつけていますが、簡単に言えばそれであってます」 「だったら何か力を使って見せてくれよ。そうしたらお前の言うことを信用してやる。例えばこコーヒーを元の熱さに戻すとか」 橘京子は少し困ったような表情で笑った。 「すみません無理です。そういう解りやすい能力とはちょっと違うのです。あ、でも……」 橘京子はテーブルの上に置いてあった俺の紙コップを両手で持った。本当に超能力で元に戻そうってのか? 今無理って言ったばっかじゃねぇか。 「ええっと…… んん……」 冷めたコーヒーの黒い水面が小刻みに揺れる。見た感じただ橘京子の手の震えがそのままコップに伝わってるだけなんだが。 ……いや、無理しなくていいぞ? 「ううん、信じてもらえないのなら意味が無いから…… 信じてもらわなきゃ……」 水面に波が立つ。ガタガタと手とコップが震え、もう橘京子は必死の形相だ。ていうか泣きそうだ。 そのまま念を送ること数分、コーヒーカップが倒れた。モチロン超念力でもなんでもなく、ただ彼女の手の震えが臨界点に達しただけである。 「んん……! もうっ!」 ……なんかすまん。ほんとごめんな。うん、信じるからさ。もう解った。 「でも……その…… うぐぅ…… ほんとに信じてくれるの?」 ……ああ。お前は超能力者だ。そんでハルヒは神だ。それでいいだろ? 半ベソになり、泣きついてくる橘京子をなだめてからその背中を見送った。あの足取りだと帰り道に事故りそうだがな。 ちなみに。 言うまでもないかもしれないが。 当然、コーヒーは冷たいままだった。
https://w.atwiki.jp/kyokotan/pages/20.html
「ねえ、佐々木さん?」 「どうしたんだい橘さん?」 「実はね・・・あの・・・」 「うん?」 「・・・あそこに変なものがついちゃってるの・・・」 「あそこ?」 「そう・・・あそこ・・・」 「・・・?」 「んん・・・!!もうっ!!ここっ!!」 「ああ、股間か。変なものって?」 「・・・これなんだけど・・・」 「・・・これはペニスだね。だけどペニスは本来生物学上では♂に備わるものなんだけどね。」 「ぺ・・・ペニスペニスって連呼しないでよぉ・・・」 「ああ、すまない。しかし見た限りではかなり膨張してるみたいだね。苦しくはないかい?」 「ぅん。なんか苦しいの。それに・・・」 「熱い」 「うん、そう、なんだか凄く熱いの・・・ってなんで佐々木さんわかるの!?」 「実は僕にもあるんだ。ほら、見せてあげるよ。」 「キャッ!!・・・す、すごぃ・・・」 「血液が充満して僕のも膨張してしまっているね。」 「あ!?ってことは私が最初聞いたときはすでに気付いてたんじゃ・・・」 「ああ、橘さんの顔を見たらなんだか少しいじわるしてみたくなってね」 「んん・・・!!もうっ!!佐々木さんのいじわる!!」 「はは、ごめんね。」 「でも、私たちどうすれば・・・なんだか熱くてかっかするし」 「心配しなくても大丈夫だよ橘さん。この解決方法はとても単純かつ、快感を味わえる喜ぶべきものなんだ。」 「え?どうすればいいの?」 「こうすればいいんだよ。」
https://w.atwiki.jp/tkfs/pages/79.html
H市の紹介をします。 私の住む町ではお祭りがたくさんあります。 ごんごん祭り(4月) 祇園祭り(7月) また、冬には美味しい魚が食べれます。
https://w.atwiki.jp/kyokotan/pages/23.html
「あの、待ちました?」 答える代わりに空になったグラスを振ってやる。ああ待ったさ。人を待つってのは新鮮ではあったがな。 向かい側の席に腰を下ろすツインテールの女子高生、朝比奈さん誘拐事件の実行犯である橘京子はその顔に申し訳なさそうな笑みを浮かべて、 「あたしから誘ったのにすいませんです。あ、アイスコーヒー一つ」 ウェイトレスを呼んで注文を済ませた彼女が俺に向き直った。朝比奈さん誘拐犯という先入観さえなければ普通の高校生同士、という扱いも出来たんだろうが……。 ともかく本題だ。佐々木のことで話だって? 「ええ。だけど…… 少しここでは話しにくいことなのです。手を貸してもらえますか?」 またか。つーか閉鎖空間に行くならわざわざ喫茶店に呼び出す必要は無いだろう。しかも向こうに行ってる間俺の意識は無いんだ。何かあったらどう 「って、おい! 勝手に……」 「大丈夫。目を閉じて」 橘京子に強引に手を取られ、仕方なしに目を瞑る―― 「もう開けていいわ」 目を開いた時、既に世界は変わっていた。雑音一つ無いセピア調に彩られた世界。 ここにいるのは俺と橘京子だけ、確かに他の奴に聞かれる心配は無いな。 「それにこっちの方が落ち着くし、時間の流れも向こうよりゆっくりだから」 「そうか。そいつはよかったな。じゃぁ聞かせてもらおう、佐々木のことで話ってのはなんだ?」 正直ここに長居はしたくない。ハルヒの閉鎖空間よりはマシだがそれでも特異な空間ってことには変わりないからな。 だが俺の問いに橘京子は答えず、少し黙り込んでから、 「……少し、歩きましょう」 すっくと立ち上がった。俺の質問は無視か。無視なのか。 俺にだって時間が無限にあるわけじゃない。ついでに現実世界の俺の体のことだって心配だ。どうして一日二十四時間以上活動しなきゃならん。 「閉鎖空間の案内なら間に合ってる。さっさと本題に移れ」 立ち上がった橘は少し悲しそうな顔をすると、渋々、といった感じで再び席に腰を下ろす。なんで超能力者にはこうも話の通じない奴が多いんだろうね。古泉は余計なことまで言い出すがこいつは何も言わないのか。困った奴だ。 だが橘京子は席に着いても中々話し出そうとはせず、「佐々木さんが……」「森さん怖……」「みんな協力してくれない……」とかぼやき始め、終いには、 「ほ、本当は話なんてないの! ただ、えーっと、その、キョ、キョンさんとお話できたらいいな、じゃなくて! 佐々木さんが『キョンは鈍いから印象に残るようなことをしてあげないと人の好意に気付かない』とか言うから…… その……」 その姿があまりにも健気で、このまま放っておくと空回りして自爆してしまいそうだったので、俺は仕方なく閉鎖空間で彼女と何時間か話した後、現実世界に戻った。 翌日。 「なぁキョン! お前もとうとうナンパの道に目覚めたのか!」 「何の話だ谷口。俺はお前のような誰彼構わずナンパして振られるような性癖は持ち合わせていないぞ」 谷口が朝っぱらから猛烈な勢いで絡んでくる。やめろ暑苦しい。野郎に集られてたまるか。 つーか、俺がいつ、どこでナンパなんてしたんだ。お前が期待しているようなことは何も無い。 「嘘つけ。俺は見たぞ! 昨日キョンが俺の知らない女と喫茶店で――」 「ちょっと待て。お前の知らない女と俺が一緒にいるだけでナンパだって言うのか。それはいささか短絡的過ぎないか」 少し俺も虚を突かれて動揺していたんだろう。その時はまだ気付いていなかった。 ――気付いてさえいれば谷口の口を世間には言えないような手段ででも塞いでいたのに。 「ねぇキョン、その話、あたしも興味あるんだけど」 ああそうさ、俺の後ろの席、SOS団団長涼宮ハルヒ。こいつが俺の後ろの席だということをすっかり忘れていた。 「あれは確実にただの友達って雰囲気じゃなかったな。二人で「わあああああ! なんでもない!! そんなことは無いぞハルヒ!!」 今の瞬間に机で殴ってでも谷口の口を塞いでおくべきだった。ハルヒは俺の後ろという地の利を最大限生かして俺を羽交い絞めにすると、 「さぁ谷口。続きを言いなさい」 後ろで鼻息荒く俺を締め上げるハルヒとまるで自慢するかのように言葉を発する谷口。全身の血が消え失せたような気がした。 「――二人で手を繋いで実に十分以上! ウェイトレスがコーヒー置いても無反応で二人の世界に入ってやがったんだ!」 俺は脳が酸欠になるのを感じつつ、どうやったら谷口の顎を粉砕できるか考えていた。
https://w.atwiki.jp/mopsprogramming/pages/120.html
Low Level ワード Mops辞書 データをコンパイルする コードをコンパイルする Immediateワード POSTPONE BUILDS DOES ビットシフト演算 AND OR インライン定義 Stateの切り替え 動的ライブラリー呼び出し MachOCall フレームワークコール New! Objective-Cライブラリーとの接続 High Level・特殊機構 WindowクラスとWindow+クラス 自動Late Bind 再配置可能アドレス 再配置可能アドレス用クラス ObjPtr Reference Referenceによる動的オブジェクト 解釈モードでの条件構造 ローカルセクション メソッドのローカルセクション メッセージ カスケーディング 頻用メッセージの略記法 パブリックインスタンス変数へのメッセージ インスタンス変数へのアクセス コードサンプル メニューの作り方1 メニューの作り方2 マージソート コムソート ユークリッド互除法 トップページへ A面へ
https://w.atwiki.jp/mopsprogramming/pages/40.html
一般論と非コードワード コード書記法の一般原則 コメント データスタック スタックの実装と利用原則 スタック効果コメント Mops環境でのコード実行 ファイルをロードする ワード(関数)を定義する New! 定義検索 New! 語彙表示 一般ワード群 数値処理 スタック操作子 四則演算 文字および4文字タイプ 定数 VARIABLE(大域変数) VALUE(大域変数2) 変数格納値の増減 LOCALS(局所変数1) 名前付き引数(局所変数2) 浮動小数点数の基本 浮動小数点数スタック操作子 浮動小数点数演算 DATAスタックーFPスタック間の移行 大域浮動小数点変数 浮動小数点数ライブラリ関数 浮動小数点数特有の機構 簡略化演算 数値の比較 浮動小数点数の比較 剰余演算 文字列操作 文字列オブジェクト Stringの諸データとアクティブ部分 Stringクラスの基本メソッド 文字列オブジェクトの操作 文字列オブジェクトの廃棄 固定文字列 文字を呼び出す 構造化 条件構造 確定ル−プ1(DO-LOOP) 確定ループ2(DO-LOOP類似) 確定ループを途中で抜ける 不定ループ1- BEGIN-WHILE-REPEAT 不定ループ2 - BEGIN-UNTIL 不定ループ3- BEGIN-AGAIN CASE構造1 CASE構造2-- CASE[ CASE構造3 -- SELECT[ 再帰 Forth型ワード ワードを忘れる STATES XT [ ] -- ブラケット-ティック VECT Forth風のアレイ オブジェクト指向 オブジェクト宣言 クラスとは何か メッセージとバインド オブジェクト指向語彙分類 クラスを定義する インスタンス変数 特別なインスタンス変数 オブジェクトとしての構造体 パブリックインスタンス変数 スタティックインスタンス変数 インスタンス変数の継承 オブジェクト内構造体 メソッドの定義 メソッドの属性 メソッドの継承 多重継承 コンストラクタ、デストラクタ 動的オブジェクト 動的オブジェクトにメッセージを送る 動的オブジェクトの廃棄 テンポラリオブジェクト 動的オブジェクトのリスト 動的オブジェクトリストの廃棄 動的オブジェクトリストクラスの自作1 動的オブジェクトリストクラスの自作2 OSとの接合 システムコール シェアードライブラリコール 少し機能ごとに整理してみました。 トップページへ B面へ
https://w.atwiki.jp/mirphak/pages/20.html
LEGEND SPECIAL ver.(計1枚) No. Rarity Card SV03-S001-001/001 R
https://w.atwiki.jp/mopsprogramming/pages/173.html
There are some arguments against NEON OO Model on which Mops and Win32Forth are based. Most of those arguments stands on some implicit presuppositions that lead to the conclusionthat NEON OO Model is bad. I hate to participate in political debates disdaining something. But I will try here to defend NEON OO Model against tricky arguments. By the way, I never try to refute other OO models than that of Mops. Simply I want to free Mops OO Model from wrong images. An Object should be passed via parameter stack in Forth dialects? In Object Orientation Semantics, Object is a receiver of messages and an actor. It is not considered as a Data or Parameter or other thing to be passed to a procedure via parameter stack. Surely, an object is internally some data in Mops and Win32Forth, too. But the fact belongs to the implementation details. Implementation detail is another problem than the syntax and semantics of a language. If one says objects must be data so that they must be passed via parameter stack as parameters, the one is losing sight of OO semantics and sticking to the second class or pseudo OO, say, "Data Orientation". Of course, it is never wrong in itself for objects to be able to be passed as parameters. The objectID (normally pointer) of an object is surely a datum. But at the same time it could not be called a defect of the system if an object would not be passed as a parameter in normal message sending. So "selector object" syntax is never worse than "object selector" syntax from the view of OO semantics (human interpretation). Or rather "selector object" syntax is better in message sending appearance in my opinion because it distiguishes the actor (object) from parameters to be processed by it. The fact that Selector cannot be ticked hinders extensibility. By the way, why can Selector always be ticked? Tick pushes xt of the word ticked to data stack. Which xt? Selector is not a word in that its execution semantics is undefined without combining witha class or object. Surely, after defining a way of binding a selector can be ticked. That is, we can do in NEON Model AMETHOD SELECTOR [] ; AMETHOD But it is because by defining the selector as being late bound, looking for the appropriate method of a passed object through class linkage becomes a part of contents of SELECTOR s execution semantics.The opinion that a selecor should always be tickable is based on a presupposition thatselector always has its definite execution semantics.But the presupposition itself is false in NEON Model.In OO semantics of NEON Model it is object, not selector that looks for method in its class on gentting message. Normal selector in NEON model is a part of message but not a name of a procedure by itself. Still you need early bound method xt? If so you can do in PowerMops ref ACLASS AnObjRef no_subclasses \ ossia ObjPtr AnObjRef class_is ACLASS AMETHOD ( param1 param2 ... ^obj -- ? ) - AnObjRef SELECTOR AnObjRef ; AMETHOD Or you need faster late bound method xt using a methods table? If so you can do in PowerMops ref ACLASS AnObjRef AMETHOD ( param1 param2 ... ^obj -- ? ) - AnObjRef SELECTOR AnObjRef ; AMETHOD AnObjRef can be a temporary (that is, local) object when it is declared with "ref". Addition (8/3/06) An object could be seen as an actor or data+index to method. parameters selector object syntax shows the object as an actor and parameters+selector=message as Input to the object. That is, selector is a part of input to object.It is default OO syntax of NEON model, so we cannot reproduce the process or function from selector via tick. Why could we know from a part of the input, the process in which it will be thrown? On the other hand, Mops allows also to see an object as data+index to method.Index to method is a pointer to the class or to the method table in PowerMops.Other optional arrangements for method binding represent this consideration. Smalltalk-like late bind is slow. Yes, it is slow compared with early bind. Late bind is about 20 times slower than early bind in some bench mark code in PowerMops.But early bound method is very fast in PowerMops. Although it can not be generalized, early bound method of PowerMops on PPC seems to be about 5 times faster than equivalent non-OO code in GForth native on x86 machine in CPU clock base from some data. Anyway, PowerMops early bound method is really fast.Late bind is slower than _it_. On PowerPC, PowerMops late bound method is about 10 % faster than non-OO equivalent codein GForth 0.6.2. Damn slow? Definitely NO. In reality, iterative late binding (polymorphism) happens often on a heavy task in itself like "DRAW".In such a case over head concerning method binding is almost negligible. Besides. Who can say NEON Model is incompatible with a vtable like late bind?PowerMops class does build a methods table. It is not the matter of OO model.Again, an implementation detail!PowerMops doesn t require something like VIRTUAL declarations of methods, unlike C++.Quite handy. To tell the truth, PowerMops normal (wihout vtable) late binding implementation has a special search optimization (acceleration) mechanism. As the result, it becomes fast as it is.System implementer can and should elaborate one s implementation in order to make the system fit with the preference, unless the implementation details should be controlled by others. Conclusion An argument such that using such and such technique internally is bad will come typically from the view of language system implementers, not from that of users of the language. We could see the OO feature of a language as one of the tools to write application in the language. Implementation details could be left to the ingenuity of system implementers.Then we could concentrate the syntax-semantics relation of OO constructs.In this respect NEON model is not bad. If you have your own (favorite) Forth with OO extension different from NEON model,NEON model may look bad and ununderstandable. So what?From my experience Mops OO feature is very good for application programming.But if you don t understand and never have done programming in Mops, Mops code will look like unreadable. That would hold for any languages.The strength of OO syntax of PowerMops may be best realized when you are writing some application in PowerMops. -- Maybe not when you are trying to implement the OO model for your system. Theories concerning OO generally look like bound by (negatively or positively) the world view of Algol family (C, C++, Java). But Forth is flexible and extensible language, instead of inflexible and fixed language, like C.Why do we need to worry about OO theories build (aversively) on (procedural or sometimes even including hybrid type) Algol family languages?Java model may be good (the best? how about Objective-C? you stick to the (a bit old) industry and/or scholastic standard? It may be ok. But unfortunately we are free from such a credo.) OO construct in context of C. But its OO syntax and semantics look still in half way. "When an object is passed as a parameter to a procedure,the procedure checks the class and ..." This sounds like always-virtualized C++. But we really need it on Forth?Surely NEON model didn t look like (reversed) Java. But so what? Is it a bad signal in itself? In my opinion, the thought that an object is data is a quite low level idea.Even if such a thought is allowable, taking an object quite the same as other parameters is wrong according to the standard OO way of thinking. It might be better to push object IDs onto another stack than normal parameter stack in that such a thought, at least, is not confusing objects with data parameters.But once we suppose a special object stack to which objects are dynamically pushed at runtime, default late binding begins to look very natural in order to send messages consecutively to anonymous objects in the object stack. This thought seems to treat objects as a group of data.This grouping is realized as class-structures in Java or C++. Late binding loosens tight and narrow restrictions of class-as-type mechanism in Java or C++,and virtual method utilize this looser grouping. So late binding (sometimes identified with polymorphism) is seen as the true establishment of OO for Java or C++. In this philosophy, an instance (individual) is derived from its group (whole or class structure). Building the structure (set-subset grouping) is more important than individual objects. Objects (instances) are processed by something (method) according to the group they belongs to. Methods are the first class entities in this view, so each of them should have the independent meaning inspite of naming collisions.This is quite different from the philosophy of NEON model where the property of an individual object is more important than class structure, and the structure is a mere result of the similarity of properties among objects. Objects (instances) process some data as processors using their methods.Objects are the first class entities and methods are secondary (ancillary) to the object that knows them. Surely, PowerMops uses systemcall functions. Those are written in C++ so that a system object is a data -- low level object -- to be passed as a parameter to a function.But we know our OO model can cohabit with it because ours lives at higher level. In NEON OO model we don t need to stick to the lower level to keep low level accessibility because our moving to the higer level never sacrifice the lower level constructs. Such a cohabitation of low level and high level is Forth, I think. In my humble opinion, C++ or Java looks like taking a side road to OO. In Smalltalk or NEON model we think that an object has its ability (functionality) and propertiesand shares those with other objects by inheritance. While in C++ or Java all such things seem to be treated in view of accessibility. It is not, of course, illogical. But at the same time such accessibility definitions can be so much complicated thatan object cannot be recognizable as a semantically definite entity. I suspect that this growing tendency of the complication of rules to define wether to allow/prohibit accessing may cause, so to speak, concentration of abstract class structure and thought that an object is a mere data because such a complication is very likely to break the unity of an object as an actor. Of course, such way of thinking or programming habit comming from the C++ or Java situation is neither bad nor good in and by itself. My point is that different presuppositions will lead to different ways of thinking or programming habits. Terribly bad design fom one point of view may not be so bad from another point of view, vice versa. We should reflect on which presupposition we are putting in evaluating something. That s all. Mops default method binding is said to be Early Binding. But it is programming-default or a kind of standard, not interpreter and/or compiler default. Mops allows plural ways of message sending. But the way of binding is always explicit in code. Mops doesn t try to force programmers to take one certain way. It simply leaves many possibility to the programmers.It may be considered bad in the world of standard programming. But if they were true, Forth itself would be bad.Additionally we never confuse normal words with messages to invoke corresponding methodsin Mops code because they obey distinguishable syntax rules. Word and selector are different entities in NEON model, so they look different in Mops code. It is natural, I think. NEON OO model is said to be based on Smalltalk model.It is true that Smalltalk is too different from Forth since it is pure OO language. But we should be able to learn from Smalltalk (or other pure OO language) a natural and straightforward OO syntax-semantics correspondence, and think about its realization in Forth. From this point of view, NEON model has a excellent mesage sending appearance in my opinion. Moreover, advantages of NEON model are more in practical aspects of programming than in theoretical ones.This achivement is surely an evidence of Forth s tremendous expressive power since whole the OO construct has been written in Forth. Or you insist we should keep Forth pure? Well, but we never lose the pure Forth by adding OO constructs. Supplying NEON OO feature will never prevent us from programming in pure Forth.It is the strength of Forth we are referring to. You may need a simplicity. But there is no THE simplicity. Simple doesn t always mean short code.Fortunately, everything is already simple in Forth -- aren t you confused by your implicit suppositions?You may say "we should wipe it hour by hour and let no dust alight".But we will reply "it is always clean so where can the dust alight?"(Zen of Forth). Appendix a defect of some of Object-Method syntax (unfinished) My argument was(is) supposing PowerMops as a typical example of NEON OO model. And I treated only standard OO syntax of PowerMops. PowerMops has some OO related features that were not mentioned above.For example PowerMops allows also object-method(+class information) syntax for binding. We can select one way according to the situation. PowerMops class can have a method whose content may be different object-wise, and, when needed, can be changed dynamically. But this feature is achived by xt-variable functionality, which is already in standard Forth.That is, PowerMops solves this problem via instance variables, not inheritance. Since standard Forth already has the solution, NEON model doesn t need additional theoretically sophisticated late binding mechanism or other OO functionality to solve it. (I don t know what OO features Win32Forth has. But I think what features PowerMops has could be implemented in Win32Forth.) This article was written as a reaction agaist the claim "message-object syntax is bad or simply wrong". So, this article doesn t contain all features of PowerMops OO. I used an OO semantics to support message-object syntax. But I am not a Dogmatiker. I never insist that this semantics is one only theoretical foundation for PowerMops OO coding.I have never imagined that every PowerMops user should first be taken by this semantics to understand the OO code in PowerMops. My intention was simply that since one simple and understandable semantics can support message-object syntax, this syntax should have some reason. So I think that a claim "message-object syntax is bad or simply wrong" was shown to be baseless. I like PowerMops OO syntax by practical reason, not by dogmatical one. I have been thinking about philosophy to support PowerMops language including pure Forth part.But the motivation comes from experience of real coding on PowerMops.I have realized PowerMops is very powerful. Moreover PowerMops, which is optimizing native Forth compiler for PowerPC with OO feature based on NEON model, is wholly written in Mops.That means, PowerMops itself is an example software of NEON type OOP. And its syntax and semantics make communication with other programmers by codequite easy.I have been trying to undestand what in PowerMops language makes it so (in my opinion) great. I found Dogmatikers tend to hate NEON OO model, or even Forth ideas.Perhaps, because those ideas doesn t fit for their dogma.It is true, theory may help to simplfy the grammar of programming language. But excessive simplification could cause practical confusion. What I call practical reason to favour PowerMops, is the fact that what we are doing is clear from the code in PowerMops. Selectors have a bit different appearance from normal words.By that, we can easily realize whether certain part of the code is written in OO or in normal Forth. In all cases of OO coding, selector supposes object near by and may be followed by class name or certain token, which are context elements used to define appropriate method. (I tend to think such a combination of words as a "phrase", which is an extension of concept ‘word’.)The context is very local. It is consumed with one selector. (Well, now PowerMops has a syntax to extend the context in a case. But the ends of the context can be made clear in code.) Locality of information for interpretation of code is important factor for readble code. I realized that in some OO Forth using object-method syntax, object and method cannot be distinguished from normal Forth word in the names.And according to object-method synax theory, object (or class name) switches the contexts.Since we cannot see whether a word is an object or a normal forth word from its name,object can be said to cause implicit context change.Introducing implicit context change in a language is a really bad idea, I believe.OO system of such type will be, sooner or later, unable to live without some naming convention,such as, Begin Object name by a capital letter, etc.. But setting conventions will be too weak to avoid all possible problems coming from implicit context change. For example aFile dup may duplicate ‘aFile’ (File duplication when dup is a mothod of file). Or ‘aFile’ may do something and ‘dup’ duplicate a stack item. How could you know which is the case from this line?If you know aFile is an object and has a method ‘dup’, the definition of dup will be found in method implementation (definitioin). But the method operating code above doesn t contain the information. That is, introducing implicit context change may break the reliability of normal forth words in the meaning of the actions when reading code(especially when debugging the code other programmers wrote). In Reality, syntactical details are trivial. Implementing some features or flavors is also trivial in Forth based environment. Anything isn t very difficult to implement in Forth environment compared with some other languages. But I think confusing syntax should be avoided, even if that might be a result of exact mapping of OO to standard Forth syntax. Surely, good programmers could avoid all such troubles by some coding conventions or goood memory.Some may say, "I have no problem with that. So it is perfect."OK. I could believe it is true for you. But how about anyone other than you? Forth should be only for good programmers?But no one is born as a good programmer, andnot every person will begin programming as a good programmer. Such an elitism might kill the language. However I myself don t care about what floavors will be adopted as the future OO standard of Forth. Once the specification becomes clear, PowerMops surely can support it by an optional library. Top Page
https://w.atwiki.jp/regina51/pages/306.html
2003 MINI Cooper S imageプラグインエラー ご指定のURLはサポートしていません。png, jpg, gif などの画像URLを指定してください。 推定ランク D Class 355 エンジン 直4+スーパーチャージャー 最高速度 4.1 ハンドリング 4.6 加速(0-100km/h) 5.4 ブレーキング 4.3 最大出力 122kw(163PS) 最大トルク 22.4kgfm 参考 2001年に登場したミニクーパーは、BMC時代のスタイリングをモチーフとして登場した。エンジンは1.5Lの直列4気筒エンジンにスーパーチャージャーを搭載し、163PSを発揮する。2005年には、出力をアップし170PSになった。この、ミニ・クーパーは唯一の正規輸入モデルであり、2007年モデルと2011年モデルは正規輸入されなかった。(理由は不明。恐らく日本では開発されていなかったガソリン直噴ターボが搭載されたからだろうと思われていたが、クーパーSは普通のターボを搭載していたため。ちなみにNAのベースグレード版は正規輸入された) 価格 12,000CR
https://w.atwiki.jp/ks_unyo/pages/18.html
平成25.10.26 ダイヤ 京成時刻表Vol.26-2準拠 普通車6両(本線):平日 運行 開始 終了 リンク 01 05:59 24:55 01 03 06:26 08:04 03-1 11:27 21:02 03-2 05 06:10 08:41 05-1 18:40 20:39 05-2 07 06:40 21:12 07 09 06:28 08:53 09-1 16:35 21:12 09-2 23:22 24:48 09-3 11 05:14 10:07 11-1 17:22 20:09 11-2 13 07:00 20:53 13 15 06:48 09:14 15-1 19:05 22:06 15-2 17 05:03 09:17 17-1 15:47 23:50 17-2 19 07:20 15:25 19-1 18:31 19:23 19-2 21 05:03 24:37 21 23 07:29 09:11 23-1 10:37 14:14 23-2 17:12 21:59 23-3 25 04:35 15:53 25-1 17:02 20:11 25-2 27 04:45 22:18 27 29 04:47 24:21 29 31 04:41 22:04 31 33 07:21 22:33 33 35 08:04 24:41 35 37 05:43 08:29 37-1 10:44 21:52 37-2 39 07:10 08:42 39-1 19:34 23:50 39-2 41 06:04 23:41 41 43 07:39 09:18 43-1 11:07 23:39 43-2 45 08:02 16:25 45 47 18:23 21:29 47 49 18:08 24:00 49