From: krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org   
      
   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   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)