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: Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 17:42:40 +0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <v6104k$1ll8n$1@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>
 <v5tvgj$11700$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 15:42:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="57d60550289802839571a21a5d205bf4";
	logging-data="1758487"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18cIaP0Hx4UwGfOaQ6E1bCt"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SuEIEQmLaWDnP+o2E2uuBxfcuaU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5tvgj$11700$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2832

On 2024-07-01 14:13, Krishna Myneni wrote:
> On 7/1/24 04:02, Ruvim wrote:
>> On 2024-07-01 05:49, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>>> 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.

In Forth-94:

   <http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/dpans16.htm>
   <http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/dpansa16.htm>
   <http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/a0002.htm>


> 
> For the specification of SET-ORDER with argument -1 replacing "minimum" 
> with "minimal" would avoid some confusion.

Wiktionary says that they are synonyms:
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/minimum#Adjective>


--
Ruvim