≡
[15:42:06] <lopata> there's somthing illogcal in the forth conditional syntax
[15:43:01] <lopata> since everything is backward
[15:45:41] <lopata> must have been IF ." else " <= ELSE ." true then" <= THEN
[15:46:13] <lopata> what you think ?
[15:49:44] <mps> lopata: it is not illogical
[15:50:23] <mps> if you understand forth that is quite logical
[15:56:25] <lopata> I mean, forth style is every words executes what it sees before
[15:56:40] <lopata> then IF ELSE THEN must follow this logic too
[15:57:25] <lopata> -1 IF ." false " ELSE ." true " THEN
[16:00:40] <lopata> oooh Im so sorry Im on the wring chanel
[16:00:50] <lopata> I thought I was on #forth
[16:05:46] <mps> :)
[16:06:17] <mps> but syntax and logic are correct to me
IRC #olimex 2022-05-30
[15:41:40] <lopata> hello fellow forther[15:42:06] <lopata> there's somthing illogcal in the forth conditional syntax
[15:43:01] <lopata> since everything is backward
[15:45:41] <lopata> must have been IF ." else " <= ELSE ." true then" <= THEN
[15:46:13] <lopata> what you think ?
[15:49:44] <mps> lopata: it is not illogical
[15:50:23] <mps> if you understand forth that is quite logical
[15:56:25] <lopata> I mean, forth style is every words executes what it sees before
[15:56:40] <lopata> then IF ELSE THEN must follow this logic too
[15:57:25] <lopata> -1 IF ." false " ELSE ." true " THEN
[16:00:40] <lopata> oooh Im so sorry Im on the wring chanel
[16:00:50] <lopata> I thought I was on #forth
[16:05:46] <mps> :)
[16:06:17] <mps> but syntax and logic are correct to me
