00:00:00 --- log: started forth/06.07.18 00:14:51 --- quit: LOOP-HOG ("Leaving") 00:18:53 --- quit: JasonWoof ("off to bed") 00:51:48 --- join: tattrdkat (n=virsys@or-71-53-74-48.dhcp.embarqhsd.net) joined #forth 01:02:54 --- quit: virsys (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 01:33:32 re the computer revolution, I think the average joe has been long moving to the position of simply hating computers. It's somewhat repulsive to learn this, but I can't blame them too much. 03:29:02 --- join: vatic (n=charlest@pool-162-83-254-201.ny5030.east.verizon.net) joined #forth 03:29:53 --- quit: madwork (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 04:18:51 --- join: Quiznos (i=1000@69-168-231-199.bflony.adelphia.net) joined #forth 04:18:58 morning, how's be anyone? 04:19:29 does anyone use eforth productively? 04:19:37 on linux? 04:30:00 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-3pool158-56.nas24.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 04:39:37 PoppaVic !! 04:39:49 hmm? 04:39:57 hi 04:40:01 howdy 04:40:06 how ya been? 04:40:21 tired... S'ok, though - yourself? 04:40:58 eh. swollen cheek, swollen tumb; not having a fun time atm 04:41:09 ah 04:41:25 SUckin' yer thumb is childish, Q ;-) 04:41:39 heh, no 04:41:52 and no, i havent jammed it, hammered it nor slammed it 04:42:24 OK, well..? 04:42:31 pain sux 04:42:40 Indeed - I agree 04:42:47 otoh, it does let you know yer alive. 04:43:41 well, i'll suffer a little while for the lord 04:43:56 He sure likes that suffering 04:44:23 not really but "that which doesnt..." 04:44:35 That's what they keep telling me. 04:45:06 heh 04:46:37 and, god knows how much pressure i can withstand (stand against) and will not allow that pressure to be exceeded 04:46:54 Bog doesn't much care 04:47:26 he cares 04:47:55 I'm trying to wrap my head around dlopen & friends, for the "core".. *sigh* Looking for a nice, tight, generic solution. 04:49:01 I leave god-issues to believers, priests and fanatics - It's like studying "political science" or "social work". 04:50:39 heh, lol 04:50:47 ok, libdl then. ask a question./ 04:51:37 Nah, that I've gotten to do what I thought was possible. Trying to decide a consistent method for registering externally compiled primitives and such. 04:52:20 a two field struct works 04:52:22 I am of the (weak) opinion that there is no reason for directly exposing the headers or bodies. 04:52:47 ..And, I do NOT want to demand & mandate in-memory heads 04:52:59 exposing to what? 04:53:11 I might bend enough to mandate that the Klasses stay in ram, though 04:53:26 klasses? 04:53:34 Quiznos: I mean exposing them to the compiler directly. 04:53:39 o 04:53:39 k 04:53:42 oops 04:54:16 Better,it seems to me, to let the compiler build the plugin and the linker adjust stuff, but retian a consistent lookup-interface. 04:54:21 i've been spending the last few weeks to redesigning a new format of the dictionary 04:54:39 Yes? as in/what? 04:56:03 well, i'm of a mind that the doctionary can be designed/laid-out to support a more flexible dictionary 04:56:41 to that end, i've been thinking in terms of C to lay-out the dictionary with a more lispy flavor 04:56:52 Yep, I'm tinkering even lower 04:57:15 oh? i'm dealing with the four basic fields of a word; you cant get lower than that 04:57:17 heh 04:57:24 Wanna' bet? ;-) 04:57:28 yea :) 04:57:33 heh 04:58:14 Lower is simple: treat everything as klasses & methods - look for sets and set up Klass structures that Instances may refer to. 04:58:29 that's higher than dictionary lay-out 04:58:46 I'm trying to ignore the entire content of heads or bodies - just dealing with concepts. 04:58:51 ok 04:59:25 is there a url to Klasses and methods you're using? 04:59:29 In _theory_, it seems likely that some wordlists and vocs may exist only in a dbase, others in RAM. Same with Instances 04:59:58 no. I've not decided on a particular model - seems like there are more models than improvements. 05:00:27 i've also been contemplating overloading and polymorphism with RTTI 05:00:47 Yeah, I'm not sure I understand RTTI 05:01:02 rtti == run time type info 05:01:16 it's a acronym used in gcc documentation 05:01:17 ..My current push is for a pludin-module that will allow folks to replace the i/o, stack, parsing, etc. 05:01:32 then what is "static" 05:01:42 i mean, what is the core consist of? 05:01:51 Yeah, I've seen it documented - just can't decide what muck they are screwing with. Gcc source blows large chunks. 05:02:10 of cours it does; it wants to be everything to everyone 05:02:12 everywhere 05:03:06 THe "core" is the interface, code and data between my basic headers & structs and the basic, available words, wordlists, vars, etc. 05:03:19 kk 05:04:01 I doubt it will be replaced anytime soon, but it immediately offers a way to use the dlopen stuff for later support. 05:04:03 one difficulty i'm having is deciding what to do with lispy flavor that needs heap 05:04:40 i wanna use lispy style words for using lists 05:04:41 well, I've just about decided that everything not compiled as code and data lives on the heap. 05:04:49 k 05:05:06 what do you do about addresses? are the abs or rel? 05:05:09 the/they 05:05:34 I was fighting it for a long while, but *sigh* Even the stack-nodes need to be on the heap - I'll just have to trust the system to defeat bad fragmentation. 05:06:07 that's not quite an answer; are address absolute or relative 05:06:26 I wanted to use bytecode, but shit.. I _know_ that's going to take forever to run. Otoh, I already know the value of C pointers. 05:06:34 sure 05:06:49 bytecode can be fast; word/dword would be faster 05:06:54 a cell is a cell 05:06:56 Q: it takes me a few sec to read one q and answer, while you then step to the next q ;-) 05:07:02 heh ok 05:07:55 The prob I see with bytecode is - I do not want a master fixed-array. I'd rather have z80-like "windows" into new arrays. 05:08:18 Meanwhile, you'd need to build a real-address from the bytecode.. 05:08:46 what is ``z80 window'' 05:09:23 z80's used certain codes as a 'window' to a whole new sheaf of opcodes. They acted as prefixes or "windows" 05:09:37 oh, the prefixes, yea, ok 05:09:51 and the regs' too 05:10:20 using "window" is definately a non-std word :) 05:10:24 This still drops you into the pot with addressing. And, the only "regs" I have are those I've built into a couple structs. 05:11:14 Q: well, that was the way I remapped my wall-size list years and years ago: you'd see a hole cut in the paper and fold up to the new sheaf. 05:11:24 k 05:13:29 I would just hate to create a monster array of ptrs that may well be mostly wasted-space. 05:13:56 you mean a C *vector[] ? 05:14:24 like Funcptr bytecodes[N]; 05:14:29 k 05:15:10 one of my end-goals is to provide for a kind of module loading and unloading 05:15:24 that's why i've been focusing on reladrs 05:15:29 I suspect it's not a particularly bad solution, but then: I'm pretty sure it's safer to recompile source than share the bytecode. 05:15:50 relative-addressing, in C, strikes me as iffy. 05:16:00 i'll code my forth in asm 05:16:10 I refuse to suffers "asm" 05:16:16 or for a meta compiler 05:16:20 heh 05:16:36 or maybe i'll write a c translator 05:16:41 as the meta comp 05:16:51 Too many folks want to rewrite forths over and over - in asm. 05:16:52 or yacc it 05:17:09 well, asm assures that one knows what the kernel is doing 05:17:18 I can tinker with lexx, but I just hate yacc 05:17:23 heh 05:17:28 it just takes practice 05:17:49 I prefer to write parsers from scratch, rather than suffer yacc 05:17:58 thats a skill too 05:21:01 hmm 05:21:48 what? 05:22:11 If I provide the basic support - core_register(Klass *newk) - hmm.. This would end up providing the basic, essential 'wordlist'. 05:22:25 ..it seems.. maybe.. Need to consider it more. 05:22:43 well i'm not fully understanding Klasses to answer 05:23:43 So far, in my code, a Klass is a very limited struct. It has a few funcptr's a few datum and room to add more. 05:23:59 ok, what do the ptrs point to? 05:24:18 Which ptrs? 05:24:26 the funptrs 05:25:15 the func-ptrs point to whatever primitives will manage the Klass - using the one and only global, VMcore; or the current VMthread context. 05:25:20 ..stacks, etc 05:25:44 ok, so a klass is struct for abstracting the vm? 05:26:00 The funcptrs may internally use vtables, or switch/case or whatever - 05:26:04 kinda like linux's VFS? 05:26:21 Q: more like they condense particular subsets of issues 05:26:36 umm, i thought i had it there for a sec 05:26:54 like numbers, or characters, or strings, or, whatever 05:28:07 ok. 05:28:13 i gotta afk, ttyl? 05:28:25 I'll be here awhile 05:28:29 okidoke 05:28:31 later 05:28:39 gone 05:38:25 --- join: timlarson_ (n=timlarso@65.116.199.19) joined #forth 05:44:47 --- join: timlarson____ (n=timlarso@65.116.199.19) joined #forth 05:45:58 --- quit: timlarson_ (Nick collision from services.) 05:46:10 --- nick: timlarson____ -> timlarson_ 05:46:35 --- join: timlarson____ (n=timlarso@65.116.199.19) joined #forth 05:47:54 --- quit: vatic ("Chatzilla 0.9.71 [Firefox 1.5.0.4/2006050817]") 06:14:23 --- join: tathi (n=josh@pdpc/supporter/bronze/tathi) joined #forth 06:26:23 hmm 06:28:54 whoa.. Cool... Now, wtf to do with it. 06:39:32 --- join: madwork (n=foo@derby.metrics.com) joined #forth 06:46:21 --- quit: PoppaVic ("Pulls the pin...") 06:48:59 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-2pool236-251.nas22.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 06:58:35 --- join: virl (n=blah@vie-213-235-250-004.dsl.sil.at) joined #forth 07:20:27 --- join: JasonWoof (n=jason@unaffiliated/herkamire) joined #forth 07:20:27 --- mode: ChanServ set +o JasonWoof 07:29:50 humph 08:14:07 --- quit: PoppaVic ("Pulls the pin...") 08:58:12 --- part: crc left #forth 09:29:23 --- join: neceve (n=claudiu@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:16:43 --- join: Ray_work (n=Raystm2@199.227.227.26) joined #forth 10:18:33 --- join: aureo (n=noban@32.Red-81-40-190.staticIP.rima-tde.net) joined #forth 10:23:07 --- nick: aureo -> cuaquero 10:25:49 --- quit: neceve (Remote closed the connection) 10:33:59 --- join: neceve (n=claudiu@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:34:21 grrrrr 10:34:31 I'm getting so sick of people who ignore my questions in e-mails 10:34:37 I get all organized, I figure out what I need to know 10:34:43 and I put it all out clearly in an e-mail 10:34:59 then they either just address one of the issues and ignore the rest 10:35:08 JasonWoof what question? 10:35:23 or they "reply" to the question (ie put a paragraph of text after it) without answering the question 10:35:30 (just giving some related info 10:35:32 heh 10:35:34 k 10:35:55 one to a customer about what she wants me to do 10:36:12 an e-mail with one request and about 7 questions. 10:36:21 well, if she wont answer your q then tell her "i cant succeed without your answer" 10:36:22 he said he'd get the thing I asked for, but didn't answer the questions; 10:36:41 Quiznos: well, yeah. I just have a hard time not getting grumpy. 10:36:41 --- quit: tattrdkat (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 10:36:50 of course 10:37:04 I want to do actual work, not sit here and try to decrypt her e-mails 10:37:11 tell her so 10:37:24 these particular e-mails from her came in with no formatting. she just stuck her replies into the middle of my paragraphs. 10:37:37 you know what that's called? 10:37:38 I had to read my entire e-mail through to try to find the bits she wrote 10:37:48 "threading" ba ha ha ha 10:38:33 I did. I started my e-mail off with this: Something funny happened to this e-mail, and it came through looking like this: 10:38:40 heh 10:39:03 I'm sick of training people how to use e-mail 10:39:09 maybe I'm being stupid. 10:39:12 I should probably just call 10:39:19 well, that's called umm 10:39:20 last night I coludn't because it was after midnight 10:39:25 but I could have today 10:39:28 Writing 10:40:47 ok, I feel better after billing for a little #forth therapy 10:40:57 cool, yvw! 10:40:59 my turn!!! 10:41:03 heh 10:41:11 doyou know of a metacompiler writ in C? 10:46:21 what's a metacompiler? 10:46:40 wow; ok. umm, it's a compiler to generate a kernel 10:47:00 that was unexpected :) 10:52:51 a metacompiler is a compiler compiler. 10:53:19 in the same fashion, a metadiscussion is a discussion about a discussion. 10:53:29 Quartus !!! do you know of a meta comp in C? 10:53:48 You mean a C compiler written in C? 10:54:00 we're in #forth, a meta comp writ in C 10:54:10 i have smallc already 10:54:11 :) 10:54:18 and gnuc 10:54:18 I know what channel we're in. You asked about C, so I asked for clarification. 10:54:22 heh 10:54:31 c compilers arent called meta comps 10:54:38 A C compiler written in C is, in fact, a metacompiler. 10:54:45 i know but they arent called that 10:54:53 Perhaps not by you. 10:55:09 and i've never seen the term thus used in all my reading and surfing 10:55:12 :) 10:55:17 Gforth is a metacompiler written in C. 10:55:22 ok 10:55:25 i dont gforth 10:55:32 Why not? 10:55:43 i'm not sure 10:59:12 --- join: nighty (n=nighty@66-163-28-100.ip.tor.radiant.net) joined #forth 11:00:02 I would expect a Forth metacompiler to be a program that reads Forth and generates a kernel. To close the loop, I'd expect the generated kernel to be able to replace the original program and perform the same task on the original source. So what language the first version is written in is largely irrelevant. 11:00:52 In this regard, gcc is a metacompiler, as it can take its own source and recreate itself. 11:01:35 I believe Gforth requires a C compiler, so in that sense it's not perhaps a true metacompiler. 11:02:26 you mean that it compiles itself through a c compiler 11:02:36 Yes, I mean that it requires gcc. 11:02:49 I don't believe Gforth can be used to build Gforth. 11:02:58 ok 11:03:04 so you want a forth that is coded in C 11:03:14 Not me, Quiznos. :) 11:03:24 but once compiled from C can run on it's own and without the help of a C compiler re-compile itself from forth source? 11:03:34 sorry, the above is directed at Quiznos 11:04:42 JasonWoof no; a metacompiler of forth written in any language, translates the lernel source written IN forth to another language, usually to assembler or even machine language 11:05:06 Quiznos, that's actually called a target compiler. 11:05:28 yes, that too 11:05:42 Metacompiliation and target compilation are not the same thing. 11:05:52 ok, what's the difference? 11:06:28 A target compiler takes Forth and generates an executable either for the same architecture, or another (cross compilation). A metacompiler can recompile itself. So my earlier suggestion that Gforth metacompiles isn't valid. 11:06:44 kk, kk. 11:06:47 as I understand it target compiler compiles code for a different processor/language 11:07:10 JasonWoof, it can, or it can compile for the same processor/language, in which case it's just a 'compiler'. :) 11:07:21 right 11:07:24 that makes sense 11:07:31 hey, does anyone have hardcopy or text of the RIT publications? i'd love to have the texts 11:07:59 Quartus Forth is in an odd position running under Palm OS 5, as Quartus Forth generates 68K native code. OS5 runs on ARM, and the 68K is emulated. So is it a compiler, or a cross-compiler, or a target compiler? :) 11:08:19 i'd called "flexible" 11:08:30 and "hosted" 11:08:55 Sure, it's flexible and hosted, but is it compiling or cross-compiling or target compiling? Grey areas. 11:09:36 well, for me, all my years of reading forth, i dont recall ever reading about such a beast; 11:09:40 Quiznos: there are several forths that compile themselves. Not as many as I'd expect, but stull 11:09:43 still 11:09:57 i mean metcompiling and cross-comp are common words in forth lit 11:10:02 hosting too 11:10:12 A hosted Forth is one that runs under an OS. 11:10:13 I haven't read that much about forth 11:10:18 I mostly just make it up as I go along 11:10:22 good 11:10:33 forth is not about restrictions. 11:10:34 herkforth and fronds can both compile themselves 11:10:40 but they are prabably not what you are looking for 11:10:44 herkforth is ppc only 11:10:49 and fronds isn't complete enough 11:10:53 i'm on a pentium 11:10:54 (my projects) 11:10:56 kk 11:11:06 i could whip up a c metacomp but why reinvent 11:11:14 anybody know if isforth or retroforth can compile themselves? 11:11:21 i have a glimmer of memory of seeing a c-metacompiler for forth 11:11:45 it's included in one of the more common historical forth packages 11:11:54 the basic trouble with metacompiling is that you have to be processor dependant 11:12:01 and you have to write your kernel twice :) 11:12:04 gotta run. bbl 11:12:13 oh lord help my neuron to make the right mix of chemical to recall it 11:12:16 heh 11:12:28 nite jason 11:13:22 Here's Jeff Fox's page on metacompilation, etc. http://web.archive.org/web/20050207084756/http://www.ultratechnology.com/meta.html 11:13:42 ty 11:14:11 i got eforthl installed, and running on a tty, to play with 11:14:21 i wanna see what it can do 11:14:40 i need to learn about unexec() so i can port it 11:14:47 to forth 11:16:11 There's also proposed ANS wordset for cross-compilation that's been in use for some years, it is quite an interesting read, as it shows what tools are required. 11:16:41 who has that? 11:16:45 taygeta? 11:17:08 ftp://ftp.forth.com/pub/ANS%20Forth/ 11:17:08 did you know that Skip is online here occasionally? 11:17:12 ty 11:17:17 I think I saw him here once. 11:17:59 yea, the first time i realised who it was when he joined #Linux, i thanked him for his site and work in Forth. 11:18:33 I don't know how active he is with it anymore. 11:18:52 he mentioned that he was in the middle of reorganising the archive 11:19:23 Fox's page there uses some perhaps unconventional definitions of terms. 11:19:31 k 11:20:35 The earliest use of 'metacompiler' that I've seen in Forth literature referred to Moore's early systems, I believe one of the enhancements that he built at Mohasco was the ability of his Forth to rebuild itself from source, which he called metacompilation. 11:23:17 At NRAO Kitt Peak he built a Forth implementation on an IBM360/50 mainframe, and cross-compiled it onto a 32KB Honeywell H316 minicomputer. That Forth could also metacompile. So if it wasn't at Mohasco, it was at Kitt Peak. 11:23:54 cool 11:24:45 Moore: "I struggled with the concept of meta-language, language that talks about language. Forth could now interpret an assembler, that was assembling a compiler, that would compile the interpreter. Eventually I decided the terminology wasn't helpful, but the term Meta-compile for recompiling Forth is still used." 11:26:25 I would suggest that a metacompiler can recompile itself. This would make gcc a metacompiler, and of course certain Forths. 11:27:02 afaik, camelforth and mxforth are the only forths that i'm aware of that can meta compile 11:27:18 but then there's that c-metacomp i'm trying to recall 11:28:12 I recall a very old effort written in C that would convert Forth into C, sort of, three falls out of five. 11:28:32 yea 11:28:54 I would hesitate to call that metacompilation. 11:30:16 Are you playing with eforth 1 or eforth 2? 11:30:18 yea, that's translation 11:30:23 lemme ck 11:31:08 All compilation is translation. I see Moore's point in that the terminology isn't helpful. Some pedant on ##c put forward that cp is a compiler, because it translates source into the same source. 11:31:17 Hohensee's name is in it and the version is e 11:31:52 cpp, in a fashion, yes it is,but that's rather a stretch i think 11:32:01 loosely it is a translator 11:32:04 No, cp. The copy program in unix. 11:32:08 oh 11:32:23 afaik of cp.1, it translates nothing 11:32:31 A to A is still a translation. 11:32:31 it's just a filter; not a translator 11:32:48 in a functional language understanding yea 11:33:19 a function of null, ie, a pass-through; like tolower( 'a') == 'a' 11:33:30 So depending on how pedantic you want to be, you can make the terms completely useless. I think there's value in the term 'metacompiler' to describe a system that can rebuild itself, and in 'cross-compiler'. 11:33:57 agreed 11:34:43 I don't know about Hohensee's version of eforth. I don't see it in these listings: http://www.offete.com/eforth1.html 11:35:23 eforth is a teaching model, isn't it? Very primitive implementation. 11:35:23 H ported eforth to linux, cleaned it up, added words for all kernel services 11:35:36 i wouldnt call it primitive; minimal is better 11:35:44 Naive implementation, and very slow. 11:35:53 portablilty was what Ting was after 11:35:57 nah 11:36:17 Ting cops to it being slow. "eForth model was designed for portability, and only 31 primitive FORTH 11:36:17 words are machine dependent and must be coded for specific underlying 11:36:17 CPU. It is slow except for the very fast CPU's like 80x86." 11:36:50 And even on 80x86, it'd be slower than a better implementation. 11:38:12 As I recall, single linked-list dictionary search, indirect threading. 11:39:03 not itc 11:39:06 dtc 11:39:55 Hard to argue that it isn't a slow model. 11:40:20 "slow" is very relative 11:40:40 Yes, it's relative to 'slower' and 'faster'. :) 11:40:47 and user persepctive 11:42:04 I'm not talking about whether a user thinks a given application is slow, but whether one Forth compiles/runs a given source faster than another. eforth isn't built for speed. 11:42:16 ok 11:42:54 do you konw if anyone has made gdb understand forth? 11:43:20 No idea. I don't have much use for debuggers. 11:43:24 k 11:43:49 It might be fun to convert eforth to full native code. 11:43:55 yep 11:44:06 so, what have you been doin with your forth? 11:44:07 You'd win up writing pretty much a whole new Forth, though. 11:44:35 I'm working on extending the compiler to allow for very large applications. 11:44:42 cool 11:45:18 wht needs extending? 11:45:53 Quartus Forth is 16-bit, so the basic build has a 64k codespace. I'm building the necessary infrastructure to allow for transparent multiple segments. 11:46:07 what is the host cpu? 11:46:14 68K. 11:46:16 k 11:46:28 so you also have a 32k loca limit too 11:46:31 local 11:46:37 local limit? 11:46:42 signed byte limits 11:47:05 Not sure I follow. 11:47:31 as i understand, 68k has relative offset bytes and full address words; 11:47:53 rel offset words too 11:47:55 For relative address offsets, there's 32K in either direction. 11:48:01 yea, thats it 11:48:08 That's where the 64K codespace comes in. 11:48:13 nods 11:49:02 I don't have any users complaining of hitting the ceiling in Quartus Forth v2, but it seems like the next direction to take it. 11:49:19 cool 11:49:19 It takes a fair bit of Forth to fill up 64K. 11:49:25 yea!! heh 11:50:02 for what was the 'here' pointer again? 11:50:12 next free byte iinm 11:50:14 HERE returns the current dataspace pointer. 11:50:17 above dict 11:50:30 Hang on, there's no requirement for the dictionary to be anywhere near dataspace. 11:50:35 oh 11:50:38 i'm non-ansi 11:50:45 Even in non-ansi, there's still no requirement. 11:50:48 k 11:50:55 i'm linear too :) 11:51:11 There were Harvard-architecture Forths going way back, separate code and dataspace. 11:51:17 i might be fig but i['m not sure tet 11:51:19 yet 11:51:21 and 'last' points to the last defined word, right? 11:51:26 yep 11:51:33 'last' isn't in all Forth systems. 11:52:16 gforth has last as a user variable, and latest as a word that fetches it. 11:52:17 well, for me that's not important 12:24:47 --- quit: cuaquero () 13:01:40 --- quit: madwork (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 13:08:15 --- join: madwork (n=foo@derby.metrics.com) joined #forth 13:43:42 --- quit: timlarson_ ("Leaving") 13:44:32 --- quit: timlarson____ (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer)) 14:32:25 --- join: I440r (n=mark4@24-177-235-246.dhcp.gnvl.sc.charter.com) joined #forth 14:40:40 working on command line history for isforth now 14:44:46 wheres robert ? 14:46:56 --- join: ikie51 (n=ichoeff@user-1120cac.dsl.mindspring.com) joined #forth 14:47:20 I440r woot 14:47:28 who bert? 14:48:43 --- part: ikie51 left #forth 14:49:15 robert used to be a fixture in here lol 14:51:37 --- quit: virl ("Leaving") 14:52:15 so then it's your fault he's MIA? 14:52:51 maybe because i didnt add command line history fast enough heh 14:53:08 he asked for it a long time ago but the groundwork wasnt in place fully at that time 14:53:28 i'm convinced 14:53:34 so then it's your fault 14:54:27 or yours 14:54:47 nuh uh 15:00:13 I440r: yeah, it's all your fault :P 15:00:18 I think he got into Smalltalk 15:00:26 trator! 15:00:27 lol 15:00:34 heh 15:00:35 and im adding command line histiry just for him too!!!!!!!! 15:00:37 lol 15:00:37 +i 15:00:53 brb, gotta go check mail 15:00:56 snale mail 15:02:50 back 15:05:50 im thinking of getting a ASUS A8N32 with an athlon fx :) 15:05:56 and? 15:07:07 your not geeky enough to be in here 15:07:10 !!!!!!!!!!1 15:07:11 lol 15:07:16 pff liar 15:07:21