Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM!wmb
From: wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: BASIS Feedback
Message-ID: <9008151429.AA01423@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 15 Aug 90 05:43:24 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: wmb%MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 39

> But one gets the impression that the committee is "running out of steam".

Probably true.

> I just received BASIS12 in the mail today, and found parts of it to be
> rather disjointed.  In particular, in one place the page number sequence
> goes 14 18 15 19 (pages 16 and 17 are apparently missing).

2 meetings ago, the (volunteer) BASIS editor resigned.  The assistant
editor replaced him, lasted for one meeting, and then moved to Africa.
The BASIS 12 editor was doing the job for the very first time, so its
not surprising that a few mistakes crept in.

The standardization process takes a long time, and it is quite a feat
to stay with it for the duration, especially considering the relatively
weak economic support that Forth has (i.e. it is difficult to get most
companies to pay for attendance at a Forth meeting, and most Forth
vendors aren't exactly rolling in dough).

> The apparent stalemate over LOCALs, which seems to me to be a pretty
> simple concept, is disturbing as well.

LOCALs is anything but simple.  It requires the addition of at least three
entirely new capabilities to Forth:
	1) Temporary naming
	2) Local storage frames
	3) Declaration syntax

There is a widespread demand for their inclusion, but there is little
common practice to allow the committee to decide how they should work.
(i.e. how to pick from among the many competing schemes).

> I wonder how soon we can expect to see this project "wrapped up".

The goal is to have the standard "wrapped up" by early 1991.  Then
it has to go through the public review process, which is bound to
be drawn-out, since Forth programmers are highly opinionated.

Mitch