Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: What are the existing standards?
Message-ID: <1870.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 16 Oct 90 03:16:44 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 93

Category 10,  Topic 1
Message 21        Mon Oct 15, 1990
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 07:25 EDT
 
Ah, how fortunate that my restless night allows me to respond so promptly...

> Read SCOPE.ARC in the library!

I downloaded it in the same session when I uploaded my last comments. Now I
have to arrange to email it to someone who can process .RTF files, and for him
to send me hardcopy...  :-)

>> The point I was making is that even when all previous
 >> implementations _agreed_, the ANSI team has changed things.
 > Can you give me an example Brad?

Offhand?  How about WORDLIST for VOCABULARY, and ADDITIONS for DEFINITIONS? 
(I realize that search orders vary from implementation to implementation, but
the acts of declaring and invoking a vocabulary are remarkably constant across
Forth standards.)

I would argue that CHAR is an example, although I realize ASCII was never
formally adopted anywhere -- it was just a widely accepted informal standard. 
(A pity those aren't recognized more often.)

> ...are you willing to continue having Forth laughed at for its
 > lack of error recovery?

Really?  Can you tell me who's been doing this laughing, and why C and Pascal
were never objects of their ridicule?  I've heard Forth criticized for many
reasons, but this was _never_ one of them.

> Some members of the TC are unwilling to accept a standard that
 > does not address this issue...  ...either the issue is resolved,
 > or we will not have a standard.  It's as simple as that.

Sounds to me like some members of the TC are indulging in a little extortion. 
"Give me what I want, or I'll torpedo this standard!" Is this the model of
behavior you wish to promote?  Are these the kind of people who should decide
a national standard?

>> Even minor variations in the implementation details can radically
 >> affect the usefulness of a construct.  [Examples]
 > I'm sorry, I can not group the changes you mention in the 83
 > Standard as "minor".  They have major impact to applications.

Sorry, Dennis, I should have put "minor" in quotes originally.  This is
exactly the point I was trying to make -- seemingly trivial details in an
implementation can have major applications impact. Only I wasn't referring
just to the problem of updating old applications code; I was saying that even
in _brand_new_ constructs, little things make a big difference, and these are
hard to see without experience.  If you were designing a new language, would
you make "true" -1 or +1?  What would you have done if you hadn't experienced
both in the Forth community?

> Are there any volunteers who would record the debates...?

Oh, I can imagine what a TC meeting is like -- I've been involved in similar
efforts.  I was just saying that, so long as TC meetings are conducted and
reported as they have been, the only option many of us have is to protest and
criticize their decisions after the fact.

BTW, I note that the proposal/comment form is no longer included in the BASIS
distribution, and hasn't been for some time now.  Had I not pestered Martin
Tracy at a FORML conference, I wouldn't know how to submit a proposal to the
TC.  Just a thought.

The "proposal log", a useful innovation which appeared briefly around BASIS10,
is now gone too.  *Sigh*

> The TC is not in the "public debate" mode yet.

Then why this category on GEnie?  :-)  Seriously, if you don't get the debate
accomplished now, you'll be in for a REALLY rough ride later, when the dpANS
is officially published for comment.  Which you already know.

> ...their goal is to get the dpANS publish next year.

IMHO, had there been fewer people who were hot to get their pet ideas into the
standard, this could have been accomplished sooner. Shucks, I was reasonably
happy with BASIS8.  (Or was it BASIS6? :-) )

> Anything else, either new features or resurections of past
 > resolutions, will be given little consideration.

Does this mean it's too late to comment on BASIS12?  According to MINUTES.13,
the BASIS12 document has been officially adopted now. Although no one saw it
but the TC.  (Grumble.)

- Brad
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp