Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!pacbell!pacbell.com!ames!think!samsung!uunet!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: BASIS Feedback
Message-ID: <1072.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 3 Jun 90 21:26:23 GMT
References: <9006011818.AA29786@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Latest link in the ForthNet chain.  (Pgh, PA)
Lines: 23

In <9006011818.AA29786@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) writes:

> So far, I know of NO decision that the committee has made that makes
> it impossible to portable code.  Quite the contrary.  In cases where
> the meaning of a particular (controversial) word has been declared to
> be implementation-defined, new words with "neutral" names have been
> provided to do the precise things.
...
> A similar example is "NOT" .  It was impossible to get people to agree on
> whether it means bitwise logical inversion or negation of a flag.
> So, "NOT" is no longer a standard word (and in actual fact, "NOT" has not
> been portable since 1983).  Instead, the word "INVERT" means bitwise logical
> inversion, no questions asked, and the word "0=" means flag negation.

This strikes me as the only sane thing to do when faced with opposing
factions that won't give in.  I'm curious as to how long it took the committee
to hit upon this solution?

-Doug

---
Preferred: willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu OR ...!sei!willett!dwp
Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp   [in a pinch: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]