Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!shelby!agate!ucbvax!PENNDRLS.BITNET!DAVID
From: DAVID@PENNDRLS.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: string standards (was RE: ANS FORTH TECHNICAL COMMITTEE)
Message-ID: <9102141904.AA21163@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 14 Feb 91 18:31:44 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: DAVID%PENNDRLS.BITNET@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 17

Eric S Johansson <wang!harvee!esj@UUNET.UU.NET> writes:
>If folks don't find the current string wordset definition acceptable,
>I suggest we take a clue from another part of the computer world whis
>has an acceptable set of string manipulation functions.  I
>suggest forthifying the ANSI C set of string functions.  These set
>of routines have passed the test of time, they are in common usage,
>they are used in portable code, the rest of the computer programming
>world understands them.  what more could you ask for :-)

Ack.  I *hate* doing strings in C.  Even FORTRAN has better string
operators than C (well, sort of; depends what you need to do :-).
This may be one on which there will just never be an agreement.
Of course, the fact that I hate it is no reason for it not to be a
standard; there are plenty of other standards I dislike :-).  Doesn't
keep me from using them :-(.

-- R. David Murray    (DAVID@PENNDRLS.UPENN.EDU)