Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!ucsd!ucbvax!BRFAPESP.BITNET!UNBCIC From: UNBCIC@BRFAPESP.BITNET Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: ANS Forth Message-ID: <9010200210.AA07876@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 19 Oct 90 13:16:00 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: UNBCIC%BRFAPESP.BITNET@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV Organization: The Internet Lines: 123 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 90 03:16:44 GMT From: ForthNet articles from GEnie Subject: What are the existing standards? Category 10, Topic 1 Message 21 Mon Oct 15, 1990 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 07:25 EDT >>> 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.) Really? Don't you think that 30 ( words ) VOCABULARY ONE and VOCABULARY ONE are something different? Well, starting from this I could put the whole Standard down saying that in Gra-Forth this or that is different... I would like to know how commom are the non-standard VOCABULARYs. But I don't know everything. If this proposal passed all the Committees and SubCommittees, they probably are right. I don't know, also, any DEFINITIONS that isn't like 79/83. But.. > 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.) Yes. I agree with that. But then, if you say (write?) ASCII " you know what you will get, because " in ascii is 34. It makes more sense writing CHAR ", don't you think so? Well, your answer to this is obvious, but do you think that ASCII is more commom than CHAR? *REALLY* more commom? >> ...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. I agree with this. But I would like to have more than C or Pascal (otherwise I would not be using Forth). And such things must be Standard, or your program will never be ported. I think that Ctach&Throw must be put in Future Directions... >> 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? *I* hope not. >>> 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? Yeah. >> 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* I quoted this because it's true and I agree with this. >> The TC is not in the "public debate" mode yet. ??? Again, I agree with the following: > 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. And more, if it's not a public debate, why you are reading about it, anyway? >> ...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? :-) ) So am I with BASIS 12 (although I still don't know how to LOAD a text file, only how to know if my program is being LOADed from one :-) >> 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.) ??? THIS I didn't understand. What, then, I have, that's supposed to be BASIS 12 text? Sent as UUENCODED file in the FIGI-L (at Bitnet), and by mail (not e-mail)? > - Brad It's good to hear someone who do not agree with me (although I agree with most of your ideas): it's easy to perceive my errors... (8-DCS) Oh, one more thing: This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp Thanks, Doug.