[comp.lang.forth] LEAVING OUT WORDS

GEnie@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/19/89)

 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'

LEFF@PITTVMS.BITNET (12/20/89)

The recent forthnet additions seem interesting but so
many?  Is it possible they could be put into daily collections
and sent as one piece of mail instead of individual messages?

peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/22/89)

> The recent forthnet additions seem interesting but so
> many?  Is it possible they could be put into daily collections
> and sent as one piece of mail instead of individual messages?

I agree. They raise the noise level of comp.lang.forth without
providing much useful input. Perhaps a digest format would be
helpful, or even a new newsgroup?
-- 
`-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
 'U`  Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>.
"It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier
and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com

marc@noe.UUCP (Marc de Groot) (12/25/89)

In article <7386@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> The recent forthnet additions seem interesting but so
>> many?  Is it possible they could be put into daily collections
>> and sent as one piece of mail instead of individual messages?
>
>I agree. They raise the noise level of comp.lang.forth without
>providing much useful input. Perhaps a digest format would be
>helpful, or even a new newsgroup?

Ditto.  I get the feeling that Usenet is not being transmitted back to
GEnie.  This effectively makes the GEnie articles the equivalent of
annoying crosstalk on telephone lines.  If the connection is not
bi-directional it is not very good.

I applaud the efforts of the person who's doing this -- your intentions
are obviously good.  Please send me e-mail telling me who you are?  Thanks.

^M
-- 
Marc de Groot (KG6KF)         |"...few people know what to do with a computer.
Noe Systems, San Francisco    | They decide that running an operating system
UUCP: uunet!hoptoad!noe!marc  | is a substitute for doing productive work."
Internet: marc@kg6kf.AMPR.ORG | -Chuck Moore