Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!dwp From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Missouri Message-ID: <1633.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> Date: 29 Aug 90 03:39:10 GMT References: <12413@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips. (in Pgh, PA) Lines: 68 In <12413@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) writes: > > I think that it is a safe bet that anyone who wants to have existing > code run on proposed ANSI systems will have to do quite a bit of > rewriting. THIS IS PROBABLY TRUE OF ANY NEW STANDARD. My only > question at this point is whether the rewriting is feasible or > justified: (1) Will the new standard allow us to do the things we > currently do?; (2) Will it be enough of an improvement over current > standards to justify the effort? I started asking questions about > this and have, so far, received mixed responses. I'm curious to know what the things were that you couldn't do with ZEN1_10. > I should make clear (as I have done several times in the past) that I > firmly believe that a good Standard is essential for the survival of > Forth. What I am now trying to discover (by asking questions) is > whether the proposed ANSI Standard in its current form has arrived at > that state. Is it really directed at making sure that significant > programs can be written portably? Is it really directed at defining > the Forth language as well as our current understanding allows it to > be defined? Have words names and actions been chosen to facilitate > programming -- or are we being stuck with clumsy compromises? etc. I would think you wouldn't even need to ask that question. As has been stated several times in the past, the ANS standard is NOT supposed to break new ground. It is supposed to condense and solidify what has already been proven. I think you need to be asking instead: Is the ANS charter compatable with what I want out of a standards process? If you are interested in making a brave new Forth, the ANS process is not for you. > world". I think most of us will be willing to excuse the unfortunate > aspects of the process as long as the end result is good. Inquiries of > the "can the proposed Standard do this?" variety should be regarded as > natural and normal questions at this stage. Attempts by those outside > the Team to pin down what can and cannot be done should be welcomed -- > they are an essential part of the process. Since I don't recall seeing a reply to this along these lines: X3J14 has broke with ANS tradition by making a machine readable copy of the BASIS documents available. Perhaps it would behoove them to set up an email address for the submission of proposals? I congratulate Mitch Bradley on his heroic efforts in explaining the current BASIS and its politics and history. I think that perhaps the TC should consider what will happen if he burns out and stops doing that. In particular, the can has been opened and the worms won't go back in. How much that may matter on the TC can decide for themselves. > If the two questions raised about Dennis Ruffer's definition are > satisfied then this will be an acceptable answer for this particular > control-flow structure -- but the task was handled in such an ad hoc > manner that it isn't clear what tools are available in general. Please tell us how we can tell if the tools are available in general. What kind of solution would you find acceptable? You state at the end of your message "we are willing and waiting to be convinced." I'm curious as to what the ANS charter says about how much effort the TC has to/should put into "education and explication of" the Basis/dpANS" documents. Does ANS expect that the TC is to carry the light to the masses, or do they expect the TC to provide a haven and known place for finding the light? (Or something different?) -Doug --- Preferred: ( dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us OR ...!{sei,pitt}!willett!dwp ) Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp [last resort: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]