Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!willett!GEnie
From: GEnie@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: LEAVING OUT WORDS
Message-ID: <30.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 19 Dec 89 04:19:11 GMT
Organization: None that I can detect
Lines: 29


 Date: 12-17-89 (13:27)              Number: 329 (Echo)
   To: ROEDY GREEN                   Refer#: 319
 From: JACK BROWN                      Read: NO
 Subj: LEAVING OUT WORDS             Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

 RG>  HOWEVER, I think we should have some sort of document
 RG>for all these "left" out words [like TUCK] to ensure that when people
 RG>add them themselves, they use those names in a standard way.

 There used to be a controlled reference word set but that has been
 eliminated and is not likely to be put back in as it was more like a
 compromise trash bucket.  Words without enough support to get in the
 standard were thrown into the Controlled word set supposedly either on
 their way into or out of the standard next time round.  There are still
 two other words sets for those words that cannot make it into the
 standard. They are 13.0 Reserved Word Set is for inherently non portable
 common usage words like .S , DUMP etc. and 14.0 Future Directions
 word set which are candidates for inclusion in a future standard.
 TUCK does not fit into either of these word sets.
 To reserve the word TUCK it would have to be included in either the
 the Core word set or Extended Core word set.
 ---
  * QDeLuxe 1.01 #260s

 NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886   
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated program.
Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'