Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!ETSUACAD.BITNET!S47852EF From: S47852EF@ETSUACAD.BITNET ("Frank C. Earl") Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: ANS FORTH TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Message-ID: <9104181346.AA06461@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 18 Apr 91 02:13:30 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: "Frank C. Earl" Organization: The Internet Lines: 21 >Personaly I would like DEFER to be included in the CORE EXTENSION WORDSET. >I would expect F83 functionality if I ever see DEFER. (Does anyone use it in >a different way?) >If DEFER will be in the CORE EXTENSION WORDSET you can take it or leave it, but >if you take it you have to define it with a standard funtionality. >This would perfectly ok by me. Hmmm.... CORE EXTENTION WORDSET (You getting this Mitch? :) I agree- the word DEFER doesn't have to be in the core, but I'd much like to standardise the word in the CORE EXTENTION WORDSET or have it as a EXTENTION word- it controlls the useage of the word and sets the ground rules for the operation. The minimalists shouldn't complain about adding onto the CORE EXTENTION WORDSET as it is an OPTIONAL word then- but if you actually have the word in the dictionary, then it'd better be the standard way of defining it... Frank