Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!dptg!ulysses!andante!mit-eddie!mintaka!olivea!samsung!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM!wmb
From: wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: ANS Forth
Message-ID: <9010191335.AA15705@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 19 Oct 90 01:31:11 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: wmb%MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 81

>> The point I was making is that even when all previous
>> implementations _agreed_, the ANSI team has changed things.
> 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.)

Turns out not to be the case.  Creative Solutions implements VOCABULARY with
a numerical argument on the stack.  Not only that, but also the question of
whether new vocabularies "chain to Forth" or "chain to their parent" or are
independent.  That is why VOCABULARY was changed to WORDLIST.  As I recall,
there was some problem about DEFINITIONS too, but I don't remember the details.

I can't think of ANY example where something has changed when all previous
implementations agreed.


> 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.)

ASCII was changed because there is substantial sentiment against ruling
out EBCDIC machines and non-US character sets.


> ... and why C and Pascal were never objects of their ridicule?  [ about
> lack of error recovery ]

C has error recovery (setjmp()/longjmp()), and a great many significant
C programs use it.


> 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.

It would be nice if the proposal form were still included; its omission
is probably an oversight.

I can assure anyone who may be considering writing a proposal that the
form is really not necessary; just write down what you want to say and
send it in.  The detailed format is not important.

From a practical standpoint, what DOES matter is conciseness.  Long-winded
proposals just do not fly.  One page (one side) is best, 2 pages max.
If you have a lot of related stuff, break it down into several proposals
and note that they are related.  I know this is counter-intuitive, but
I guarantee that it is VERY important.  Trust me.

> 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?  ...
> IMHO, had there been fewer people who were hot to get their pet ideas into the
> standard, this could have been accomplished sooner.

Well, I guess I'm as guilty of this as anybody, especially since I authored
the CATCH/THROW proposal.

a) It is difficult to unilaterally engage in this kind of extortion.
   Most such "burning issues" garner the support of at least several
   committee members.  If the sentiments of the committee are clearly
   against you, most people (myself included) generally back down.
   A successful proposal has to win by a "substantial majority";
   this usually means about 80% or more in favor.

b) The people on the committee are those who care enough about Forth to
   pay the price, in dollars and time committment and emotional stress
   (don't downplay the stress factor; it is real and significant).
   I have paid my committee "dues" out of my own pocket and my own
   vacation time, so I feel entitled to vote as I see fit.

My "pet ideas" are successful only to the extent that I can convince 15
other independent-minded people that they are right.  So far, my "pet ideas"
have been in the form of OPTIONAL extensions that other successful languages
have had for many years, and which Forth needs (based on my own personal
experience, the existence of many papers describing various implementations
of such extensions, and the requests of many of my customers).

Mitch Bradley, wmb@Eng.Sun.COM