Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: BASIS feedback
Message-ID: <1265.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 3 Jul 90 02:50:02 GMT
References: <9007020306.AA02327@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Latest link in the ForthNet chain.  (Pgh, PA)
Lines: 45

wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley), in <9007020306.AA02327@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, writes:

> I wish we could get out of this mode of squabbling over picky little
> details.  How you spell various words (NOT vs INVERT, WORDSET vs VOCABULARY,
> / vs. whatever) is SMALL POTATOES.  I mean it just ISN'T WORTH COMPLAINING
> ABOUT.
Yes! Yes! Yes!

> 	a) By stating the "portable boundaries" of core words (i.e. the
> 	   range of usage over which the word is indeed portable).
> 	   "/" is a good example.
Yes.  This happened in X3J11 too.  Failing to point out that something
is already NOT portable won't make it portable, yet that seemed to be
a common response.

> Forth is a tool, not a Holy Grail.  Utility of tools is greatly enhanced
> by standardization, and standardization involves compromise.
And change.  I think that is the biggest problem.  Everyone would like
the standard to support their definition of "common/existing practice".
I guess it would be tough not to judge someone's level of maturity by
how willing or unwilling they are to look beyound their own parochial
boundaries.

It occurs to me that although the standards process is set up by ANSI to achieve
certain goals, I suspect that those are technically specified.  I also
suspect that ANSI provides solely technical support.  What I heard with
X3J11 and now again with X3J14 is not that there are difficult technical
problems, but difficult political problems.  As I've seen it relayed so
far, ANSI says what goal you have to reach (that ol' bugaboo: CONSENSUS)
but doesn't provide much help with the political process of getting to it.

Let me ask a more concrete question:  Does the TC for X3J14 have explicit
written criteria for deciding how "common" common practice is?  How many
vendors or delivered products must there be with conflicting definitions
to indicate a lack of "common practice"?  Express your answer in the
terms most suitable (%, absolute number, etc.).  Inversely, how many
of what units of usage are "enough" to constitute "common practice".
It seems to me that the answers to these questions strike at the heart
of the political disagreements over NOT / etc...

-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]