From: ruvim.pinka@gmail.com   
      
   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?   
      
      
   --   
   Ruvim   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)