Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 12:32:20 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
References: <v5fjkr$1p13i$1@dont-email.me>
 <2024Jun26.094910@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <v5gs5j$23lka$2@dont-email.me>
 <2024Jun28.175045@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <v5p51t$3utd9$2@dont-email.me>
 <6680c10c$1@news.ausics.net> <v5s019$jbd6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5s0d3$jbd6$2@dont-email.me>
 <bf66af7e3abb6d49d1e6ff2935802477@www.novabbs.com>
 <v5s8a8$ksnb$1@dont-email.me>
 <5c6520a0dd123d02281bb631ae5389dc@www.novabbs.com>
 <v5t1ui$sl14$1@dont-email.me> <v5tral$10nj0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5tvgj$11700$2@dont-email.me> <66828cc1$1@news.ausics.net>
 <v6283b$1rvgl$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
From: dxf <dxforth@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <v6283b$1rvgl$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.ausics.net
Message-ID: <6684b834$1@news.ausics.net>
Organization: Ausics - https://newsgroups.ausics.net
Lines: 41
X-Complaints: abuse@ausics.net
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.bbs.nz!news.ausics.net!not-for-mail
Bytes: 3683

On 3/07/2024 11:04 am, Krishna Myneni wrote:
> On 7/1/24 06:02, dxf wrote:
>> On 1/07/2024 8:13 pm, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>>> On 7/1/24 04:02, Ruvim wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-01 05:49, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/24 15:37, minforth wrote:
>>>>>> My "implementation-defined option" 0 SET-ORDER locks everyone out.
>>>>>> Too bad if you and I are one of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I want it that way. I don't like backdoors unless I created them
>>>>>> on purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the community has no issue with retaining 0 SET-ORDER then the standard's wording should be revised to say that the minimum search order is the empty search order, i.e. zero wordlists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean it's confusing that the search order can contain fewer word lists than the implementation defined "minimum search order"?
>>>>
>>>> And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search order" (as an example), will this solve the problem?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if the original proposal for SET-ORDER meant to say "minimal" instead of "minimum", for argument -1, thereby leading to the inference that the words FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER always be present in the search order. We need to check where else in the standard the term "minimum search order" appears.
>>>
>>> For the specification of SET-ORDER with argument -1 replacing "minimum" with "minimal" would avoid some confusion.
>>
>> In the rationale A.16 the phrase "default search order" is used along with an explanation.
>>
> 
> I'm searching at the Forth 2012 standard document and I don't find "default search order" anywhere within it. Worse, I find the phrase, "primitive search-order" used at the beginning of A.16, here and only here. There is no explanation of what constitutes a primitive search order.
> 
> The phrase "minimum search order" is used five times in the document:
> -- 16.4.1.1 Implementation-defined options
> -- twice in the specification of SET-ORDER
> -- twice in the specification of ONLY
> 
> In both the specification of SET-ORDER and ONLY, the standard states, "The minimum search order shall include the words FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER."

What is one expected to do with 'FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER'?  It's information like this
that's lacking, leaving it to the user's imagination.  Nor will one get clarification from
200x since by this time principal users have a vested interest in leaving things ambiguous.