Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: How will others see ANS Forth?
Message-ID: <1351.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jul 90 02:25:47 GMT
References: <9912@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 41

In <9912@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, koopman@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Philip Koopman) writes:
>  
> It was probably a mixture of seeing the mess the 79/83 function
> changing caused, the fact that words currently in use will be left
> floating, and an appreciation for the politics at work
> within the standards committee.  The point is that he reacted
> with amusement at the situation/solution instead of with
> a comment such as "that sounds like a reasonable course of action".
I wonder if there is the unstated assumption of the existance of
a reasonable course of action is realistic.  On of PJ Plauger's Computer
Language columns early this year talked about the lessons learned from the
X3J11 process.  One of those lessons was to divide the kinds of behaviour
into different bins:  Strictly-specified, implementation-defined, and
undefined (there may have been one or two more, I'm doing this from memory).
The value of explicitly allocating things to those catagories is in the
information conveyed.  If everything is "undefined" or "implementation-
defined" then you gain little.  However, those catagories don't have to
be empty either.  Its useful to know what to avoid.  I still wonder
if existing practice and the ANSI constraints leave room for what would
traditionally be considered "reasonable course of action".

> it.)  An important function of the standard is to show that the
> language is mature and ready for consideration by folks who have
> been waiting on the sidelines for any number of reasons.  If they
> pick up a copy of the standard (and perhaps Starting Forth) and
> *perceive* it as hopelessly compromised, or otherwise faulty, that is
> probably the last they (or many people they advise) will think of Forth.
I suppose we have different ideas about what "hopelessly compromised"
means.  It seems to me like you'll not do much better with the conflicting
goals of "don't break existing code and the existing code is contradictory"
and "get everyone to reach a consensus".  I had asked someone (I think
Dennis Ruffer) a while ago why ANSI was approached at this particular
time.  I get the feeling from your posts that the ANSI standard should
be a formal approval of an existing wide-spread de facto standard.  Clearly
this isn't the case.  I also get the feeling that you feel the constraints
on the standard, as dictated by ANSI, are sabotaging the effort?

-Doug
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu