Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: What should the Standard include?
Message-ID: <2461.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 4 Mar 91 13:20:20 GMT
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.
Lines: 30

Category 10,  Topic 30
Message 113       Sat Mar 02, 1991
GARY-S                       at 06:23 EST
 
       
 In article <9102271415.AA28047@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
                                  daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU writes:

 >> and rightfully so. fstrings has absolutely no place in the controlled
 >> word set. as ancillary baggage - fine. add a refrigerator if you want,
 >> but don't try to weigh down the core with personal gadgets.
 >     
 >Not in my wildest dreams would I have proposed to put fstrings in the
 >CORE wordset, and I doubt that anyone else would have proposed it either.
 >     
 >Extended STRINGS wordset, maybe, but not CORE.
 >    
 >Would the minimalists have been right to scream bloody murder under those
 >conditions?

 Mitch, we've known each other long enough, well enough that you know I 
 would never presume to speak for _all_ minimalists (or all 'any group').
 My personal response is in line two of my original reply above.   

   Gary   gars@glsrk
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwp