Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM!wmb
From: wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Simplification
Message-ID: <9102261407.AA20302@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 26 Feb 91 01:54:53 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: wmb%MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 30

> Also an aside
> to the ANSI committee: If there is interest in simplifying the wordsets,
> wouldn't it make sense to remove (or move to an extended wordset,) the
> following words: 0= 0< 0> 1+ 1- 2* 2/ and possibly other words which are
> really a simple combination of atomic words?  I understand the origins of

There is not much sentiment in the committee for removing words that have
been in every previous standard and are not broken.  Doing so would be a
pain for programmers and I don't see that it would be of much value.

Who wants to worry about whether or not "0<" is in a system or not?
I don't want to have to preface all my standard programs with:

: missing  bl word  find  nip  0=  ;
missing 0<  .if  : 0<  0 <  ;  .then
missing 0=  .if  : 0=  0 =  ;  .then
missing 0>  .if  : 0=  0 >  ;  .then
etc.

It's just too boring.  For that matter, I wish that all the plausible
conditionals were required.  I just can't understand why some conditionals
are standard but others aren't.  Obviously, you can get by without all of
them, but why make it hard on the poor programmer?  There is enough to
remember about Forth already without having to remember which conditionals
are perversely omitted.

A long time ago, I proposed including all the conditionals (< > = <= >= U<
U> U<= U>= 0< 0> 0= 0<= 0>=) in ANS Forth, but it didn't pass.

Mitch Bradley, wmb@Eng.Sun.COM