Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: ANS FORTH TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Message-ID: <2205.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 6 Jan 91 02:03:32 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 39

Category 10,  Topic 2
Message 275       Fri Jan 04, 1991
L.ZETTEL                     at 22:07 EST
 
  If I may reply to message 274 from James Meyer...
  I have been a member of the X3J14 committee for just about a year now.
  To the best of my recollection, every time a proposal (from inside or
  outside the committee) would involve adding a new word to the standard,
  the technical subcommittee would think about whether the word could be
  constructed from other standard words.  If it could, that was the kiss
  of death.
 .NOTE TO ALL WHO WANT A SMALLER STANDARD
  Show a simple definition of any word not in Forth 83 or Forth 79 in
  terms of other standard words that will work in any Forth
  implementation and get that word (almost certainly) removed from
  the standard!
 .
  The problem with leaving tool development to third party developers
  is that many of them will not release their work to the public domain,
  so it becomes difficult or impossible to port stuff from one vendor's
  system to another, or use their stuff in something sold.  Then there
  is the fact that no two Forth programmers ever seem to do things the
  same way, so names, usage rules, side effects, etc. etc. also plague
  reuse and portability.  How many times has the message been posted
  here "I downloaded the file on dingus construction and everything
  seems to be fine except that the code uses the word FRAMMIS which
  isn't on my system.  Can anybody tell me how FRAMMIS works, or give
  a definition in F1066, PECULIAR version?"
 .
  As for developing your own tools, go ahead, and more power to you,
  especially if they are good and you share.  Nothing in the standard
  prevents this, and nothing in the standard prevents anybody from
  giving a standard word non-standard behavior (like having DROP take
  an argument!).  You just can't claim to comply with it.
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You cannot Reply to the author
using email.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp