Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!world!dcp
From: dcp@world.std.com (David C. Petty)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: ANS TC Magnet for Cont. Ref. Set
Keywords: ANS Forth
Message-ID: <1991Feb12.075739.12678@world.std.com>
Date: 12 Feb 91 07:57:39 GMT
References: <2284.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> <2756383@harvee.UUCP>
Reply-To: dcp@world (David C. Petty)
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Lines: 29

In article <2756383@harvee.UUCP>,
esj@harvee.UUCP (Eric S Johansson) writes:

``(Brad Rodriguez writes:)
``
``> Indeed, I ran into this problem once, and the exception handler I designed
``> (see SIGForth vol.1 no.2) had precisely this capability.
``>  (It also allowed execution to continue after corrective action was taken,
``>  but this capability may not be as generally useful.)
``> 
``> Concerns like this are why I believe it's too soon to standardize
``>  a Forth exception handler.
``
``I beg to differ.  ... The one
``thing I find missing and can't figure out how to synthesize is
``something like the eiffle retry semantics.
``
``the fact that  we can think of problems with a part of the standard is no 
``reason to chuck that part.  

Au contraire... the fact that ``we can think of problems with a part
of the standard'' is _absolutely_ reason enough to ``chuck'' that
part.  Only those things that are proven aspects of Forth should be
standardized as part of ANS Forth (in my heretical opinion).
-- 
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...'                  /______\