Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #131609 > unrolled thread

0 SET-ORDER why?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-06-25 18:25 -0500
    Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? minforth@gmx.net (minforth) - 2024-06-26 01:19 +0000
      Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-06-26 11:12 +0200
      Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-06-26 05:54 -0500
    Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-06-26 07:49 +0000
      Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 18:50 +1000
        Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 17:36 +0400
          Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 13:19 +1000
            Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Gerry Jackson <do-not-use@swldwa.uk> - 2024-06-27 23:10 +0100
              Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 11:56 +1000
            Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 13:51 +0400
              Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 22:19 +1000
                Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 17:48 +0400
                  Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 03:08 +1000
                    Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 18:45 +1000
              Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 13:27 +1000
          Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Gerry Jackson <do-not-use@swldwa.uk> - 2024-06-27 05:14 +0100
            Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-06-27 11:05 +0200
              Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? minforth@gmx.net (minforth) - 2024-06-27 13:00 +0000
            Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 22:41 +1000
            Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-06-27 14:09 -0500
              Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-06-27 14:22 -0500
                Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Gerry Jackson <do-not-use@swldwa.uk> - 2024-06-27 23:08 +0100
                  Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-06-27 18:44 -0500
                Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 15:51 +1000
              Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-06-28 10:04 +0200
                Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-06-29 09:09 -0500
                  Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-06-30 12:22 +0200
            Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 14:20 +0400
              Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-06-28 21:45 +0200
                Recognizer protocol (was: 0 SET-ORDER why?) Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 02:27 +0400
              Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Gerry Jackson <do-not-use@swldwa.uk> - 2024-07-04 07:26 +0100
      Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-06-26 11:18 +0200
        Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? minforth@gmx.net (minforth) - 2024-06-26 10:36 +0000
        Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-06-26 06:13 -0500
      Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-06-26 05:56 -0500
        Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-06-28 15:50 +0000
          Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 18:39 +0200
          Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-06-29 09:17 -0500
            Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 12:21 +1000
              Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-06-30 11:10 -0500
                Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-06-30 11:16 -0500
                  Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? minforth@gmx.net (minforth) - 2024-06-30 17:38 +0000
                    Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-06-30 20:25 +0200
                    Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-06-30 13:31 -0500
                      Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? minforth@gmx.net (minforth) - 2024-06-30 20:37 +0000
                        Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-06-30 20:49 -0500
                          Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2024-07-01 07:06 +0000
                            Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-07-01 05:06 -0500
                            Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-07-01 13:35 +0200
                          Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 13:02 +0400
                            Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-07-01 05:13 -0500
                              Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 21:02 +1000
                                Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 15:56 +1000
                                Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-07-02 20:04 -0500
                                  Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 12:32 +1000
                                    Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-07-03 11:59 +0200
                                      Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 00:46 +1000
                              Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-07-01 13:39 +0200
                                Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? sjack@dontemail.me (sjack) - 2024-07-02 14:29 +0000
                                  Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 00:52 +1000
                              Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 17:42 +0400
                                Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2024-07-02 20:17 -0500
                            Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Anthony Howe <achowe@snert.com> - 2024-09-21 15:37 -0400
                              Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 21:52 +0400
                                Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Anthony Howe <achowe@snert.com> - 2024-09-22 14:02 -0400
                                  Re: 0 SET-ORDER why? Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 00:21 +0400

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#131647

On 6/29/24 21:21, dxf wrote:
> On 30/06/2024 12:17 am, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>> On 6/28/24 10:50, Anton Ertl wrote:
>>> Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> writes:
>>>> On 6/26/24 02:49, Anton Ertl wrote:
>>>>> Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> writes:
>>>>>> Why is 0 a valid argument to SET-ORDER (from the optional Search-Order
>>>>>> word set)? It can leave a Forth system in a non-recoverable state.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what?  There are lots of ways to put a Forth system in a
>>>>> non-recoverable state.
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> By design? No.
>>>
>>> Does it matter?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it matters. Not everyone uses Forth to develop and use turnkey applications. Some of us rely on the Forth environment itself as the application interface, where definitions in a precise search order *are* the interface. Inadvertently emptying the search order and violating the notion of a minimum search order would mean loss of data from a lengthy computation or data acquisition.
> 
> Under what circumstances is 0 SET-ORDER executed inadvertently?
> 

One example: assume you have a value containing the number of wordlists

0 value Nwid

and it is not properly set. Then doing,

wid1 wid2 ... widn Nwid SET-ORDER

--
KM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131648

On 6/30/24 11:10, Krishna Myneni wrote:
> On 6/29/24 21:21, dxf wrote:
...
>> Under what circumstances is 0 SET-ORDER executed inadvertently?
>>
> 
> One example: assume you have a value containing the number of wordlists
> 
> 0 value Nwid
> 
> and it is not properly set. Then doing,
> 
> wid1 wid2 ... widn Nwid SET-ORDER
> 

Beyond any particular case in which 0 SET-ORDER might occur, I am more 
concerned with the fact that the standard does not guarantee a minimum 
search order, from which it is useful to recover the search order 
including it and the Forth word list. At the core, this is really the 
problem.

--
Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131649

FORTH-WORDLIST 1 SET-ORDER should bring you "back to life".
IOW the question is whether FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER
should be findable even when the search-order is empty.
Probably classified as "implementation-defined option".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131650

In article <bf66af7e3abb6d49d1e6ff2935802477@www.novabbs.com>,
minforth <minforth@gmx.net> wrote:
>FORTH-WORDLIST 1 SET-ORDER should bring you "back to life".
>IOW the question is whether FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER
>should be findable even when the search-order is empty.
>Probably classified as "implementation-defined option".

This is a practical necessity in a Forth. I opt for
ONLY FORTH
That results in the search order: ONLY FORTH
The word FORTH is in the ONLY wordlist i.e. minimal search order.
ONLY screens off all wordlists that may be present in the search order
and in ciforth it is itself a wordlist.

ONLY FORTH is a pretty surefire way to get the system in a
defined situation. This is almost traditional, albeit not standard.

Compared to ciforth
ORDER : ONLY FORTH
in gforth ONLY FORTH results in
ORDER : Root FORTH
in swiftforth it is the same, but the Root is not shown by ORDER
unless directly after ONLY.

vfxlin has an extra wordlistm but likewise you can get the system
under control with `` ONLY FORTH ''
ORDER: ROOT EXTERNALS FORTH

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat purring.            - the Wise from Antrim -

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131651

On 6/30/24 12:38, minforth wrote:
> FORTH-WORDLIST 1 SET-ORDER should bring you "back to life".
> IOW the question is whether FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER
> should be findable even when the search-order is empty.
> Probably classified as "implementation-defined option".

The minimum search order contains FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER per the 
standard. The question is whether or not the standard should actually 
guarantee that this is always true.

It seems nonsensical to say there are zero wordlists in the search 
order, but FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER are still findable.

--
KM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131652

My "implementation-defined option" 0 SET-ORDER locks everyone out.
Too bad if you and I are one of them.

I want it that way. I don't like backdoors unless I created them
on purpose.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131653

On 6/30/24 15:37, minforth wrote:
> My "implementation-defined option" 0 SET-ORDER locks everyone out.
> Too bad if you and I are one of them.
> 
> I want it that way. I don't like backdoors unless I created them
> on purpose.

If the community has no issue with retaining 0 SET-ORDER then the 
standard's wording should be revised to say that the minimum search 
order is the empty search order, i.e. zero wordlists.

--
KM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131654

Krishna Myneni wrote:

> If the community has no issue with retaining 0 SET-ORDER then the
> standard's wording should be revised to say that the minimum search
> order is the empty search order, i.e. zero wordlists.

IMHO, the committee should refrain from adding restrictions
that only serve to make systems 'not standard' because of non-issues.

-marcel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131657

On 7/1/24 02:06, mhx wrote:
> Krishna Myneni wrote:
> 
>> If the community has no issue with retaining 0 SET-ORDER then the
>> standard's wording should be revised to say that the minimum search
>> order is the empty search order, i.e. zero wordlists.
> 
> IMHO, the committee should refrain from adding restrictions
> that only serve to make systems 'not standard' because of non-issues.
> 
> -marcel

Would you please state more clearly how this is related to the present 
discussion? There is no proposal to add restrictions.

Currently we are discussing the merits and pitfalls of 0 SET-ORDER. I am 
suggesting that a change in the wording of the standard is needed to 
avoid the inference that a minimum search order is always present which 
provides specific words listed in the standard.

--
Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131661

In article <4e7f4e42b851ec0d57352d552ad48929@www.novabbs.com>,
mhx <mhx@iae.nl> wrote:
>Krishna Myneni wrote:
>
>> If the community has no issue with retaining 0 SET-ORDER then the
>> standard's wording should be revised to say that the minimum search
>> order is the empty search order, i.e. zero wordlists.
>
>IMHO, the committee should refrain from adding restrictions
>that only serve to make systems 'not standard' because of non-issues.
+1

>
>-marcel
-- 
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat purring.            - the Wise from Antrim -

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131656

On 2024-07-01 05:49, Krishna Myneni wrote:
> On 6/30/24 15:37, minforth wrote:
>> My "implementation-defined option" 0 SET-ORDER locks everyone out.
>> Too bad if you and I are one of them.
>>
>> I want it that way. I don't like backdoors unless I created them
>> on purpose.
> 
> If the community has no issue with retaining 0 SET-ORDER then the 
> standard's wording should be revised to say that the minimum search 
> order is the empty search order, i.e. zero wordlists.


Do you mean it's confusing that the search order can contain fewer word 
lists than the implementation defined "minimum search order"?

And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search 
order" (as an example), will this solve the problem?


--
Ruvim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131658

On 7/1/24 04:02, Ruvim wrote:
> On 2024-07-01 05:49, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>> On 6/30/24 15:37, minforth wrote:
>>> My "implementation-defined option" 0 SET-ORDER locks everyone out.
>>> Too bad if you and I are one of them.
>>>
>>> I want it that way. I don't like backdoors unless I created them
>>> on purpose.
>>
>> If the community has no issue with retaining 0 SET-ORDER then the 
>> standard's wording should be revised to say that the minimum search 
>> order is the empty search order, i.e. zero wordlists.
> 
> 
> Do you mean it's confusing that the search order can contain fewer word 
> lists than the implementation defined "minimum search order"?
> 
> And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search 
> order" (as an example), will this solve the problem?
> 
> 

I wonder if the original proposal for SET-ORDER meant to say "minimal" 
instead of "minimum", for argument -1, thereby leading to the inference 
that the words FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER always be present in the 
search order. We need to check where else in the standard the term 
"minimum search order" appears.

For the specification of SET-ORDER with argument -1 replacing "minimum" 
with "minimal" would avoid some confusion.

--
Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131660

On 1/07/2024 8:13 pm, Krishna Myneni wrote:
> On 7/1/24 04:02, Ruvim wrote:
>> On 2024-07-01 05:49, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>>> On 6/30/24 15:37, minforth wrote:
>>>> My "implementation-defined option" 0 SET-ORDER locks everyone out.
>>>> Too bad if you and I are one of them.
>>>>
>>>> I want it that way. I don't like backdoors unless I created them
>>>> on purpose.
>>>
>>> If the community has no issue with retaining 0 SET-ORDER then the standard's wording should be revised to say that the minimum search order is the empty search order, i.e. zero wordlists.
>>
>>
>> Do you mean it's confusing that the search order can contain fewer word lists than the implementation defined "minimum search order"?
>>
>> And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search order" (as an example), will this solve the problem?
>>
>>
> 
> I wonder if the original proposal for SET-ORDER meant to say "minimal" instead of "minimum", for argument -1, thereby leading to the inference that the words FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER always be present in the search order. We need to check where else in the standard the term "minimum search order" appears.
> 
> For the specification of SET-ORDER with argument -1 replacing "minimum" with "minimal" would avoid some confusion.

In the rationale A.16 the phrase "default search order" is used along with an explanation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131668

On 1/07/2024 9:02 pm, dxf wrote:
> On 1/07/2024 8:13 pm, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>> ...
>> I wonder if the original proposal for SET-ORDER meant to say "minimal" instead of "minimum", for argument -1, thereby leading to the inference that the words FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER always be present in the search order. We need to check where else in the standard the term "minimum search order" appears.
>>
>> For the specification of SET-ORDER with argument -1 replacing "minimum" with "minimal" would avoid some confusion.
> 
> In the rationale A.16 the phrase "default search order" is used along with an explanation.

The more I look at it and what different systems return after -1 SET-ORDER the more
I'm confused as to what one is supposed to do after executing it - since in many
cases it's clear it is *not* the "default search order".  As for 0 SET-ORDER the
situation is even more precarious given A.16.  ISTM ANS could/should have done a
better job documenting this stuff as it was 'new practice'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131677

On 7/1/24 06:02, dxf wrote:
> On 1/07/2024 8:13 pm, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>> On 7/1/24 04:02, Ruvim wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-01 05:49, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/24 15:37, minforth wrote:
>>>>> My "implementation-defined option" 0 SET-ORDER locks everyone out.
>>>>> Too bad if you and I are one of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I want it that way. I don't like backdoors unless I created them
>>>>> on purpose.
>>>>
>>>> If the community has no issue with retaining 0 SET-ORDER then the standard's wording should be revised to say that the minimum search order is the empty search order, i.e. zero wordlists.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you mean it's confusing that the search order can contain fewer word lists than the implementation defined "minimum search order"?
>>>
>>> And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search order" (as an example), will this solve the problem?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I wonder if the original proposal for SET-ORDER meant to say "minimal" instead of "minimum", for argument -1, thereby leading to the inference that the words FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER always be present in the search order. We need to check where else in the standard the term "minimum search order" appears.
>>
>> For the specification of SET-ORDER with argument -1 replacing "minimum" with "minimal" would avoid some confusion.
> 
> In the rationale A.16 the phrase "default search order" is used along with an explanation.
> 

I'm searching at the Forth 2012 standard document and I don't find 
"default search order" anywhere within it. Worse, I find the phrase, 
"primitive search-order" used at the beginning of A.16, here and only 
here. There is no explanation of what constitutes a primitive search order.

The phrase "minimum search order" is used five times in the document:
-- 16.4.1.1 Implementation-defined options
-- twice in the specification of SET-ORDER
-- twice in the specification of ONLY

In both the specification of SET-ORDER and ONLY, the standard states, 
"The minimum search order shall include the words FORTH-WORDLIST and 
SET-ORDER."

--
Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131679

On 3/07/2024 11:04 am, Krishna Myneni wrote:
> On 7/1/24 06:02, dxf wrote:
>> On 1/07/2024 8:13 pm, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>>> On 7/1/24 04:02, Ruvim wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-01 05:49, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/24 15:37, minforth wrote:
>>>>>> My "implementation-defined option" 0 SET-ORDER locks everyone out.
>>>>>> Too bad if you and I are one of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I want it that way. I don't like backdoors unless I created them
>>>>>> on purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the community has no issue with retaining 0 SET-ORDER then the standard's wording should be revised to say that the minimum search order is the empty search order, i.e. zero wordlists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean it's confusing that the search order can contain fewer word lists than the implementation defined "minimum search order"?
>>>>
>>>> And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search order" (as an example), will this solve the problem?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if the original proposal for SET-ORDER meant to say "minimal" instead of "minimum", for argument -1, thereby leading to the inference that the words FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER always be present in the search order. We need to check where else in the standard the term "minimum search order" appears.
>>>
>>> For the specification of SET-ORDER with argument -1 replacing "minimum" with "minimal" would avoid some confusion.
>>
>> In the rationale A.16 the phrase "default search order" is used along with an explanation.
>>
> 
> I'm searching at the Forth 2012 standard document and I don't find "default search order" anywhere within it. Worse, I find the phrase, "primitive search-order" used at the beginning of A.16, here and only here. There is no explanation of what constitutes a primitive search order.
> 
> The phrase "minimum search order" is used five times in the document:
> -- 16.4.1.1 Implementation-defined options
> -- twice in the specification of SET-ORDER
> -- twice in the specification of ONLY
> 
> In both the specification of SET-ORDER and ONLY, the standard states, "The minimum search order shall include the words FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER."

What is one expected to do with 'FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER'?  It's information like this
that's lacking, leaving it to the user's imagination.  Nor will one get clarification from
200x since by this time principal users have a vested interest in leaving things ambiguous.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131680

In article <6684b834$1@news.ausics.net>, dxf  <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 3/07/2024 11:04 am, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>> On 7/1/24 06:02, dxf wrote:
>>> On 1/07/2024 8:13 pm, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/24 04:02, Ruvim wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-01 05:49, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/30/24 15:37, minforth wrote:
>>>>>>> My "implementation-defined option" 0 SET-ORDER locks everyone out.
>>>>>>> Too bad if you and I are one of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I want it that way. I don't like backdoors unless I created them
>>>>>>> on purpose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the community has no issue with retaining 0 SET-ORDER then the standard's wording should be revised to say that the minimum search
>order is the empty search order, i.e. zero wordlists.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean it's confusing that the search order can contain fewer word lists than the implementation defined "minimum search order"?
>>>>>
>>>>> And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search order" (as an example), will this solve the problem?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if the original proposal for SET-ORDER meant to say "minimal" instead of "minimum", for argument -1, thereby leading to the
>inference that the words FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER always be present in the search order. We need to check where else in the standard the
>term "minimum search order" appears.
>>>>
>>>> For the specification of SET-ORDER with argument -1 replacing "minimum" with "minimal" would avoid some confusion.
>>>
>>> In the rationale A.16 the phrase "default search order" is used along with an explanation.
>>>
>>
>> I'm searching at the Forth 2012 standard document and I don't find "default search order" anywhere within it. Worse, I find the phrase,
>"primitive search-order" used at the beginning of A.16, here and only here. There is no explanation of what constitutes a primitive search
>order.
>>
>> The phrase "minimum search order" is used five times in the document:
>> -- 16.4.1.1 Implementation-defined options
>> -- twice in the specification of SET-ORDER
>> -- twice in the specification of ONLY
>>
>> In both the specification of SET-ORDER and ONLY, the standard states, "The minimum search order shall include the words FORTH-WORDLIST and
>SET-ORDER."
>
>What is one expected to do with 'FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER'?  It's information like this
>that's lacking, leaving it to the user's imagination.  Nor will one get clarification from
>200x since by this time principal users have a vested interest in leaving things ambiguous.
>

At least to me this is clear.
FORTH-WORDLIST 1 SET-ORDER
is supposed to get Forth under control.
Traditionally done with
ONLY FORTH

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat purring.            - the Wise from Antrim -

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131681

On 3/07/2024 7:59 pm, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
> In article <6684b834$1@news.ausics.net>, dxf  <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/07/2024 11:04 am, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>>> ...
>>> In both the specification of SET-ORDER and ONLY, the standard states, "The minimum search order shall include the words FORTH-WORDLIST and
>> SET-ORDER."
>>
>> What is one expected to do with 'FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER'?  It's information like this
>> that's lacking, leaving it to the user's imagination.  Nor will one get clarification from
>> 200x since by this time principal users have a vested interest in leaving things ambiguous.
>>
> 
> At least to me this is clear.
> FORTH-WORDLIST 1 SET-ORDER
> is supposed to get Forth under control.
> Traditionally done with
> ONLY FORTH

Won't that mess up the "minimum search order" scenario described in A.16:

 "In some systems the interpretation of numeric literals is controlled by including
  pseudo word lists that recognize numbers at the end of the search order. This
  technique is accommodated by the default search order behavior of SET-ORDER when
  given an argument of -1."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131662

In article <v5tvgj$11700$2@dont-email.me>,
Krishna Myneni  <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> wrote:
>On 7/1/24 04:02, Ruvim wrote:
>> On 2024-07-01 05:49, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>>> On 6/30/24 15:37, minforth wrote:
>>>> My "implementation-defined option" 0 SET-ORDER locks everyone out.
>>>> Too bad if you and I are one of them.
>>>>
>>>> I want it that way. I don't like backdoors unless I created them
>>>> on purpose.
>>>
>>> If the community has no issue with retaining 0 SET-ORDER then the
>>> standard's wording should be revised to say that the minimum search
>>> order is the empty search order, i.e. zero wordlists.
>>
>>
>> Do you mean it's confusing that the search order can contain fewer word
>> lists than the implementation defined "minimum search order"?
>>
>> And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search
>> order" (as an example), will this solve the problem?
>>
>>
>
>I wonder if the original proposal for SET-ORDER meant to say "minimal"
>instead of "minimum", for argument -1, thereby leading to the inference
>that the words FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER always be present in the
>search order. We need to check where else in the standard the term
>"minimum search order" appears.
>
>For the specification of SET-ORDER with argument -1 replacing "minimum"
>with "minimal" would avoid some confusion.

I have a minimal system and opt out of the "optional search order wordset".
So SET-ORDER is not present.
What gives?

>
>--
>Krishna
>
>
-- 
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat purring.            - the Wise from Antrim -

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131674

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
> I have a minimal system and opt out of the "optional search order wordset".
> So SET-ORDER is not present.
> What gives?
> 

I long back opt out the search order wordset. It just gave me
management concerns. I use SCRs instead and keep requrements 
external to the files. Life has been much smoother since.

-- 
me

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web