Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!dcp
From: dcp@world.std.com (David C. Petty)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: ANS Forth
Keywords: ANS Forth
Message-ID: <1991Jan15.062013.18217@world.std.com>
Date: 15 Jan 91 06:20:13 GMT
References: <4410@mindlink.UUCP>
Reply-To: dcp@world (David C. Petty)
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Lines: 29

In article <4410@mindlink.UUCP>,
a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) writes:

``>         a) would like a standard that is more layered so that the Core
``>            Word Set is truly the _kernel_ of Forth and
``
``What are your expected applications that require only the minimum kernel?  

The ``layered standard'' arguments have been made many times in this
forum.  

I agree that embedded systems need not be standard.  It just seems to me
that, if X3J14 is taking the extension word set idea seriously, they
might consider moving 2DROP, 2DUP, 2OVER, 2SWAP (and maybe 2! and 2@) to
the Double Number Word Set, or making a Portability Word Set that
includes ALIGN, ALIGNED, CELL+, CELLS, CHAR+, CHARS, and ENVIRONMENT?,
or making an Input Steam Word Set that includes #TIB, >IN, ACCEPT, BLK,
EVALUATE, and TIB.  All of these were proposals by me and / or the BFAFG
that were rejected by X3J14.

I know that X3J14 argues that it is wrong to divide the Forth kernel up
along functional lines, but I cannot recreate the arguments against
doing so and I do not know what criteria they are using to define
extension word sets.
-- 
 David C. Petty | dcp@world.std.com | ...!{uunet,bu.edu}!world!dcp /\
      POBox Two | CIS: 73607,1646   | BIX, Delphi, MCIMail: dcp   /  \
 Cambridge,  MA | `It must've been some-other-body,              /    \
02140-0001  USA |  uh uh babe it wasn't me...'                  /______\