Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 05:13:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <v5tvgj$11700$2@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 12:13:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f5cc790751f949ac7d1d5bc57fd0a9e";
	logging-data="1088512"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Ktdnh6Hs4TyLTiyhMA0EO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w970RwO69x7sKIy24+Pnkfe9XK4=
In-Reply-To: <v5tral$10nj0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2735

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.

--
Krishna