Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!world!dcp
From: dcp@world.std.com (David C. Petty)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: ANS Forth
Keywords: ANS Forth
Message-ID: <1991Jan15.064329.18684@world.std.com>
Date: 15 Jan 91 06:43:29 GMT
References: <4410@mindlink.UUCP>
Reply-To: dcp@world (David C. Petty)
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Lines: 50

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

``> It has been difficult to formulate a succinct description of our view 
``> versus X3J14's, because oppositional catch-phrases (minimal versus maximal;
``> compatible versus complete; useful versus portable) only serve to polarize 
``> the discussion and always leave out important areas of agreement. ....  
``> 
``> In future postings I will attempt to make the ``less is more'' point of 
``> view explicit (though that point of view seems so naturally consistent with
``> Forth itself that it is sometimes difficult to come up with words of 
``> justification).  
`` 
``Usually, difficulty in communicating a point of view indicates that the
``speaker (or writer) has an imprecise understanding of the issues.

I do not fail to understand the issues.  The current membership of X3J14
and I have wholly different views of what a Forth standard ought to be.
We are speaking a different language when we attempt to explain our
points of view to one another and thus we are often at a loss for words
_that the other will understand_.  We just simply don't agree on whether
ANS Forth ought to include whizzy new features (like locals).  I say
standard Forth is the Forth that has proven itself in the user community
and they say Forth must be ``improved'' to include things that have yet
to gain near universal acceptance.

	<...stuff...>

``There has been a lot of confusion about the definitions of "core word set", 
``"extended word set", "standard words"etc.  There is also confusion between 
``"ANS Forth Programming System", "Standard System" and "Standard System with 
``Environmental Restrictions".  
`` 
``Do you know exactly what it means to be able to call your compiler an "ANSI 
``Forth" implementation?  

Do you?  Does anyone?  

``I know the definitions were still fairly vague at the Vancouver conference.  

During the panel discsussion with members of X3J14 at the Rochester
Forth Conference working group on ANS Forth, the audience asked many
questions on conformance and labeling and routinely got conflicting
answers from the panelists.  It is not only the user community who is
confused on this point.
-- 
 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...'                  /______\