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

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

0 SET-ORDER why?

Started byKrishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org>
First post2024-06-25 18:25 -0500
Last post2024-09-23 00:21 +0400
Articles 7 on this page of 67 — 11 participants

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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#131675

Fromdxf <dxforth@gmail.com>
Date2024-07-03 00:52 +1000
Message-ID<6684141e@news.ausics.net>
In reply to#131674
On 3/07/2024 12:29 am, sjack wrote:
> 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.

Yep.  Went back to pre ALSO/ONLY schemes.  Every 'feature' just
creates more things to manage.

'Forthers have complicated every simple gift of Moore' - Diogenes

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

#131672

FromRuvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com>
Date2024-07-02 17:42 +0400
Message-ID<v6104k$1ll8n$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#131658
On 2024-07-01 14:13, Krishna Myneni wrote:
> On 7/1/24 04:02, Ruvim wrote:
>> On 2024-07-01 05:49, 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.

In Forth-94:

   <http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/dpans16.htm>
   <http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/dpansa16.htm>
   <http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/a0002.htm>


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

Wiktionary says that they are synonyms:
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/minimum#Adjective>


--
Ruvim

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

#131678

FromKrishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org>
Date2024-07-02 20:17 -0500
Message-ID<v628r3$1rvgl$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#131672
On 7/2/24 08:42, Ruvim wrote:
> On 2024-07-01 14:13, Krishna Myneni wrote:
>> On 7/1/24 04:02, Ruvim wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-01 05:49, 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.
> 
> In Forth-94:
> 
>    <http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/dpans16.htm>
>    <http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/dpansa16.htm>
>    <http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/a0002.htm>
> 
> 
>>
>> For the specification of SET-ORDER with argument -1 replacing 
>> "minimum" with "minimal" would avoid some confusion.
> 
> Wiktionary says that they are synonyms:
> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/minimum#Adjective>
> 

That seems to be the case with the Oxford dictionary as well. My 
understanding of minimum is the smallest possible, and minimal implies a 
small size (but not necessarily the smallest).

So, who knows what they were thinking when the standard was written 
because the clear statement that "the minimum search order shall include 
the words ...", which appears in the spec for SET-ORDER and for ONLY 
clears contradicts the allowance for 0 SET-ORDER.

The language needs to be fixed.

I remember when I was implementing the Search Order word set in kForth, 
the phrase "the minimum search order shall include the words ..." but 
the contradiction with 0 SET-ORDER didn't register with me at the time.

--
Krishna

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

#132272

FromAnthony Howe <achowe@snert.com>
Date2024-09-21 15:37 -0400
Message-ID<vcn79g$1n7h4$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#131656
On 2024-07-01 05:02, Ruvim wrote:
> And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search order" (as an 
> example), will this solve the problem?

Minimum functional search order?

-- 
Anthony C Howe
achowe@snert.com                                   BarricadeMX & Milters
http://nanozen.snert.com/                          http://software.snert.com/

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

#132284

FromRuvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com>
Date2024-09-22 21:52 +0400
Message-ID<vcplh0$25spg$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#132272
On 2024-09-21 23:37, Anthony Howe wrote:
> On 2024-07-01 05:02, Ruvim wrote:
>> And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search 
>> order" (as an example), will this solve the problem?
> 
> Minimum functional search order?
> 

Good idea!

Similar variants:
   - minimum usable search order
   - minimum operable search order
   - minimum operative search order
   - minimum operational search order

--
Ruvim

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

#132285

FromAnthony Howe <achowe@snert.com>
Date2024-09-22 14:02 -0400
Message-ID<8418c90b-e160-49d2-8113-afad0e52aa44@snert.com>
In reply to#132284
On 2024-09-22 13:52, Ruvim wrote:
> On 2024-09-21 23:37, Anthony Howe wrote:
>> On 2024-07-01 05:02, Ruvim wrote:
>>> And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search order" (as 
>>> an example), will this solve the problem?
>>
>> Minimum functional search order?

I like `functional`.

>>
> 
> Good idea!
> 
> Similar variants:
>    - minimum usable search order
>    - minimum operable search order
>    - minimum operative search order
>    - minimum operational search order

And this one -----^ `operational`

But I think as long as the wording makes clear its not the empty set, pick 
something nice and use consistently should be good.

-- 
Anthony C Howe
achowe@snert.com                                   BarricadeMX & Milters
http://nanozen.snert.com/                          http://software.snert.com/

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

#132290

FromRuvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com>
Date2024-09-23 00:21 +0400
Message-ID<vcpu8k$25spg$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to#132285
On 2024-09-22 22:02, Anthony Howe wrote:
> On 2024-09-22 13:52, Ruvim wrote:
>> On 2024-09-21 23:37, Anthony Howe wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-01 05:02, Ruvim wrote:
>>>> And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search 
>>>> order" (as an example), will this solve the problem?
>>>
>>> Minimum functional search order?
> 
> I like `functional`.
> 
>>>
>>
>> Good idea!
>>
>> Similar variants:
>>    - minimum usable search order
>>    - minimum operable search order
>>    - minimum operative search order
>>    - minimum operational search order
> 
> And this one -----^ `operational`


The word "operational" seems to have a stronger connotation with 
operators and interactive use than "functional".


> 
> But I think as long as the wording makes clear its not the empty set, 
> pick something nice and use consistently should be good.
> 


Agreed.


--
Ruvim

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

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

csiph-web