From: ruvim.pinka@gmail.com   
      
   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:   
      
         
         
         
      
      
   >   
   > For the specification of SET-ORDER with argument -1 replacing "minimum"   
   > with "minimal" would avoid some confusion.   
      
   Wiktionary says that they are synonyms:   
      
      
      
   --   
   Ruvim   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)