Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!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: <1869.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> Date: 16 Oct 90 03:16:41 GMT Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips. (in Pgh, PA) Lines: 105 Category 10, Topic 1 Message 20 Mon Oct 15, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 02:02 EDT Re: B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] > I'll grant that other people's -- and consequently the TC's -- > priorities are different from mine. But I think it's important > to review them periodically, both to see how valid they are, and > to see how closely the TC is sticking to them. Agreed Brad, and that is why this latest scope of work that I posted to the library is the results of their latest review of their priorities. I highly recommend you, and everyone else, check it out to see what they consider their priorities to be. > I think we need a clear statement of position here Read SCOPE.ARC in the library! [See a previous ForthNet post for this file. -dwp] I agree with your analysis of the two camps that have formed around the ANSI standard. I'm not sure how their scope of work answers your question about which camp is going to "win", but it at least shows how they weigh their decisions. Now, they will all admit that they have been very loose about the enforcement of their scope of work, but I can also tell you that they are resolved to stick closer to it from now on. IMHO, since the ANSI efforts were started as a way to make Forth more acceptable to the vendor's clients, I can see a strong tendancy to your Group B (i.e. making Forth what it _ought_to_be_). However, again IMHO, if they can "fix" some of the more glaring deficenties that I say more power to them. (*** IMHO ***) > 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? I don't see where that has happened? > But the implementation proposed by the ANSI TC has, to my > knowledge, been used only by Mitch Bradley. At the risk of making you even more sure that you are "right", I should mention that the ANS CATCH and THROW are not exactly what Mitch uses, but is a reasonable compromise that will work on most systems. I can see your resistance to the concept, but are you willing to continue having Forth laughed at for its lack of error recovery? Some members of the TC are unwilling to accept a standard that does not address this issue (and I applaud them). Mitch came forward with what looks like a reasonable way to resolve this burning issue. Sure it is too soon, and possibly inappropriate to add this new feature to Forth. However, either the issue is resolved, or we will not have a standard. It's as simple as that. > Even minor variations in the implementation details can radically > affect the usefulness of a construct. (Consider +1 vs. -1 for > "true," or the 79- vs. 83-Standard LEAVE.) I'm sorry, I can not group the changes you mention in the 83 Standard as "minor". They have major impact to applications. I could argue that CATCH & THROW will not have the same impact, since ABORT" will still work the same, but I will concede that I do not know that to be fact yet. It is too early, but it is also, unfortunately, too late. WE NEED AN ANSI STANDARD! Without some kind of error recovery mechanism, there are those on the TC who will not vote for it. Result = no standard. > (Remember the great CASE contest?) Notice there is no CASE construction in ANS Forth. > BUT...the TC's debates are rarely published -- only their > decisions Are there any volunteers who would record the debates and publish them? I'm sure the TC would gladely add it to the minutes, but they are all to busy arguing to write anything down. All that is recorded IS the final decisions. If you have not been to any of their meetings, then it is hard for me to explain it. After you have been to one, usually there is no arguement. > If this is a "hindrance", well, public debate always is. The TC is not in the "public debate" mode yet. That happens as soon as they can agree among themselves on the "draft proposed ANS standard" (dpANS). They are accepting proposals from the public to help them form this document and in a sincere attempt to resolve public debate before they publish the dpANS. Once they publish it, we enter the "public comment" phase, and they will have to respond to EVERY comment. If it appears as if the document does not represent the industry, they will have to start over. However, their goal is to get the dpANS publish next year. To do this, there needs to be some serious compromises in the next meetings. I suspect that if anything like CATCH & THROW is too debateable, it will be pulled. Their primary emphasis now is on the remaining "burning issues" which you will find in the latest minutes (MINUTES.13). Anything else, either new features or resurections of past resolutions, will be given little consideration. This is not to say that they will not listen to a compelling arguement. It is just that they are all tired and over taxed. They have been at it for three years already, and they are all eager to get the dpANS published. Anything that is not directed to that goal is not going to gain much favor any more. DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp