ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) (09/07/90)
Mitch Bradley writes, > The "ANS Bashing" title was applied to your flat denial of all > points of the reply, in which you attempted to use the answers to > your questions as "proof" that the standard is seriously flawed, and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > claimed (incorrectly) that one of the solutions presented does not > work. This claim was not posed as a request for clarification, but > as a statement. No such assertion was made or implied. At the moment the task is for users to find out what has been addressed by the ANSI Team and what has not. If something important has not been addressed, we'd like to see that it is. We are depending on those who have the documents and have been privy to the discussions to be as reliable, factual, complete, and unbiased as possible. Making overinflated claims (like saying that general methods exist when only a special problem has been solved) obscures the issue. So does giving a solution which, we later find, is based on the author's pet word which was rejected by the ANSI Team. The correctness of the solution mentioned above is still up in the air. The glossary entry in BASIS9 for EVALUATE does not suggest the kind of compiling action that Mitch's program needs. Perhaps BASIS13 will clarify the situation. It isn't essential for dialog that we all see Forth in the same way or use it for the same purposes. One of our protocols, however, should be to avoid making statements which cast aspersions on other people's motives, integrity, intelligence, or character. The term "bashing" is in this category and was unjustly applied. John J Wavrik jjwavrik@ucsd.edu Dept of Math C-012 Univ of Calif - San Diego La Jolla, CA 92093