Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!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: ANS TC Magnet for Vocabularies and :
Message-ID: <1954.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 4 Nov 90 00:27:11 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 28

Category 10,  Topic 14
Message 21        Sat Nov 03, 1990
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 18:39 EST
 
> The search rules for vocabularies thus created are different.

Quite so; and I said this when I brought the subject up.

> The semantic difference is sufficient to break code in ways that
 > cannot be fixed with a simple textual "global search and replace."

> The choice of a different name was intended to allow ... [users]
 > ...to migrate to an ANS-compliant system with a minimum of grief.
 > "Global search and replace" is considered an acceptable amount of
 > "grief".

You can't have it both ways.  If the semantic difference between VOCABULARYs
is sufficient to break code, then the semantic difference between WORDSET and
VOCABULARY is likewise sufficient, and you can't fix it with a global search
and replace.

Or was it your intention to have each transitional system implement two
different vocabulary mechanisms?

- 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