Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!apple!well!jax
From: jax@well.sf.ca.us (Jack J. Woehr)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: CASE
Message-ID: <22620@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: 14 Jan 91 02:19:43 GMT
References: <4424@mindlink.UUCP>
Lines: 23

a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) writes:


>ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (JACK WOEHR) writes:

>> So adding CASE to the Standard, while gratifyingly adding the  X3J14 sanction
>> to the form of CASE coincidentally implemented in  Vesta Forth-83+, seems an
>> act of lese-majeste against the Forth  imperative not to name something once
>> and for all that is a matter of personal taste and implementation strategy.

>I'd rather see one standard--even if it's limited--CASE method instead of
>dozens of incompatible ones.

	Like I said, X3J14 chose exactly what we at VESTA already have
implemented! So I can't complain. I'm just saying that I'm not ideologically
enthusiastic about it. Not even worth another proposal now that we are so
close to dpANS.

-- 
 <jax@well.{UUCP,sf.ca.us} ><  Member, >        /// ///\\\    \\\  ///
 <well!jax@lll-winken.arpa >< X3J14 TC >       /// ///  \\\    \\\/// 
 <JAX on GEnie             >< for ANS  > \\\  /// ///====\\\   ///\\\ 
 <SYSOP RCFB (303) 278-0364><  Forth   >  \\\/// ///      \\\ ///  \\\