Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!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: <1931.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 28 Oct 90 01:24:32 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 84

Category 10,  Topic 1
Message 28        Sat Oct 27, 1990
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 17:40 EDT
 
Response to Dennis Ruffer (and others making similar points):

> How can you say that it [polyFORTH] declares vocabularies in any
 > way similar to any other Forth?

In the same way that fig-Forth VARIABLE is similar to '83 VARIABLE: they
differ only in the presence of a numeric argument.  Every Forth that I have
seen (many, but certainly not all!) declares vocabularies with either  
VOCABULARY name   or   nnn VOCABULARY name
 where 'nnn' is implementation-defined.  I maintain that this is insufficient
reason to concoct a new name.  Obviously, the TC feels otherwise.  (As noted
in an earlier message.)

> ...people laugh at our "?" error message...

You're confusing compile-time errors with run-time exceptions.  Yes, I've
heard gripes about Forth's compiler diagnostics, but CATCH and THROW aren't
required for this -- they are for run-time exception handling.

> The same one [proposal form] that appear in the original BASIS
 > documents....still works today.

Yes, *I* know that, but I've met people who just saw their first
 BASIS document and aren't on GEnie.  *They* need the form.

Response to Mitch Bradley...

>> ...and why C and Pascal were never objects of their ridicule?
 > C has error recovery (setjmp()/longjmp()), and a great many
 > significant C programs use it.

The operative word was "never".  My original K&R "The C Programming Language"
makes no mention of error recovery; yet somehow C survived its early years and
now prospers.

> a) It is difficult to unilaterally engage in this kind of
 >    extortion.

Hmmm.  Not according to TC members I've talked to; on several occasions I was
told that some iffy proposal or other was adopted because some single
individual stonewalled and threatened to kill the whole process.  (I regret
not writing down those stories, so I could tell you precisely which issues.) 
Of course, it's possible that said individuals were BSing me in order to hide
their own complicity in something I found odious, which would imply that they
are unwilling to publicly defend their private actions.

> 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...

Mitch, I couldn't agree more that Forth NEEDS these extensions.  I disagree
with your means, not your ends.  I continue to hold that the A.N.Standard is
*not* the place for R&D.  If we need a vehicle for improving the language,
let's create one for that express purpose, instead of pressing X3J14 into this
role.

Reply to UNBCIC@BRFAPESP.BITNET (who is this really?):

>> Does this mean it's too late to comment on BASIS12?
 > ?? THIS I didn't understand.  What, then, I have, that's supposed
 > to be BASIS 12 text?

What you have is no doubt BASIS12.  BASIS12 is the result of X3J14
 meeting #12, and it is circulated for comment following that meeting;
 these comments are then considered at meeting #13, at which BASIS12
 officially expires and is no longer valid.  Meeting #13 has already taken
place, which means your document is obsolete and BASIS13 is what we're
supposed to be commenting on, before meeting #14 takes place on November 6th. 
(Someone correct me if this is inaccurate.)

In practical terms, much of BASIS12 still exists in BASIS13; only the section
numbers have changed.  What I wanted to know was, if the TC receives comments
on November 6th that refer to the officially- expired BASIS12, will they
consider these comments, or will they get tossed without reading?

- 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