In article <6684b834$1@news.ausics.net>, dxf   wrote:   
   >On 3/07/2024 11:04 am, Krishna Myneni wrote:   
   >> On 7/1/24 06:02, dxf wrote:   
   >>> On 1/07/2024 8:13 pm, Krishna Myneni wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> In the rationale A.16 the phrase "default search order" is used along with   
   an explanation.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I'm searching at the Forth 2012 standard document and I don't find "default   
   search order" anywhere within it. Worse, I find the phrase,   
   >"primitive search-order" used at the beginning of A.16, here and only here.   
   There is no explanation of what constitutes a primitive search   
   >order.   
   >>   
   >> The phrase "minimum search order" is used five times in the document:   
   >> -- 16.4.1.1 Implementation-defined options   
   >> -- twice in the specification of SET-ORDER   
   >> -- twice in the specification of ONLY   
   >>   
   >> In both the specification of SET-ORDER and ONLY, the standard states, "The   
   minimum search order shall include the words FORTH-WORDLIST and   
   >SET-ORDER."   
   >   
   >What is one expected to do with 'FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER'?  It's   
   information like this   
   >that's lacking, leaving it to the user's imagination.  Nor will one get   
   clarification from   
   >200x since by this time principal users have a vested interest in leaving   
   things ambiguous.   
   >   
      
   At least to me this is clear.   
   FORTH-WORDLIST 1 SET-ORDER   
   is supposed to get Forth under control.   
   Traditionally done with   
   ONLY FORTH   
      
   Groetjes Albert   
   --   
   Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.   
   You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the   
   hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in   
   the air. First gain is a cat purring.            - the Wise from Antrim -   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)