From: the.beez.speaks@gmail.com   
      
   On 10-04-2025 12:40, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
    > In article ,   
    > dxf   wrote:   
    >> On 9/04/2025 9:28 pm, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
    >>> In article ,   
    >>> Hans Bezemer   wrote:   
    >>>    
    >>>>   
    >>>> I see two ways out of this:   
    >>>> a. Add F.R to the standard;   
    >>>> b. Add SET-DECIMALS or SET-FIXED to the standard.   
    >>>>   
    >>>> And finally, add a section to the Annex to define and clarify the   
   whole   
    >>>> darn thing (because IMHO that is dearly missing).   
    >>>   
    >>> I'm with Anton Ertl here. If you have a clear idea what has to be done,   
    >>> formulate it and send in a proposal. (But I'm as guilty as you   
    >>> regards other matters ...).   
    >>   
    >> Why must it be done?  To please you?  If the committee is satisfied with   
    >> the status quo nothing need be done.  And that's what you're seeing.   
      
   Well, sometimes people post things just to give their take on it - and   
   hope that other, more expert people give their opinion. It might be   
   because their original take has merit - or because there are arguments   
   against it.   
      
   It's - as people call it - their 2 cents to the discussion. Because in   
   the end - that's what all this is: a shared effort to select the best   
   solution to the problem. It may turn out it is not even a problem at all.   
      
   "Calling for fixing the standard" is a bit strange in this regard. For   
   one - Forth people have never been good guardians of "the standard". Any   
   standard. No matter who votes - or what they vote - they'll still do   
   their own thing. I think I'm a notorious example of that school of   
   thought - which makes asking me a bit of a strange move. Why not ask   
   somebody who actually cares..   
      
   Yeah, I have helped to make a proposal for PLACE and +PLACE - which   
   never even made it to the voting stage. But those words were in 4tH   
   before - and they're still in 4tH, and will be for a long time to come.   
      
   So what. In the 4tH manual it says "There have been efforts to modernize   
   ANS-Forth, the Forth-200x initiative, which has resulted in Forth-2012.   
   In our view a number of proposals have been accepted which eroded the   
   consistency of Forth as a language standard even further. We tend to   
   handle Forth-2012 proposals pragmatically: if it doesn't violate the   
   basic principles we have stated, we will comply and align."   
      
   And that's about all I have to say about that.   
      
   Hans Bezemer   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)