Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a684
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: X3J14 Holding Pattern Here
Message-ID: <5916@mindlink.bc.ca>
Date: 17 May 91 21:12:29 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Lines: 33

Brad RODRIGUEZ2) writes:

> Don't forget to mention, Nick, that we have only four months (as I recall) to
> "test-drive" this "full-scale model."  Not a lot of time to test it to the
> limits...especially considering the lack of a real implementation.

True, four months is not very long for running a full test.  However, if I've
read the dpANS process properly, that's four months to the first public review.
If there are any changes, they are made and we go through another two months of
testing, then another public review.  This continues until the problems are
worked out.  This should take care of significant problems: things that ANS
Forth is unable to do, or things that make compilers difficult to write or
inefficient to run.

> And while it is true that "all comments are considered" (however briefly),
> there are a number of handy evasions which are used to avoid dealing with a
> comment...and one of these evasions is to demand a specific replacement.
> Asking the TC _not_ to do something is rarely acceptable to the TC.

You have to offer "not doing something" as a specific replacement for something
_and_ provide a solid argument for why it would be to the benefit of Forth.
The TC has heard arguments _for_ the items in Basis; you have to produce an
argument to counter those previous arguments.

I don't think the TC is ignoring solid arguments because of some personal
agenda.  I've only attended the Vancouver (90) meetings, but that was enough to
convince me of the depth of the arguments that led to the present compromises.
If you've presented proposals to "not do something", I have to assume that you
didn't provide a good enough argument to counter the other arguments.  I don't
believe the TC will vote against a superior argument.

If you think that the TC has voted down a superior argument, why not post your
argument here and let us judge?   :-)