The best forum depends on where Jabari feels he is with his proposal. This
may be a good enough place to air a "straw man" proposal; if there isn't
widespread support here, it's unlikely to get far in the general Forth
community.

A slightly wider forum for airing possible proposals is comp.lang.forth.

When you feel your proposal is "ready for prime time" then send it to
ansforth_at_minerva.com (official mailgroup for the TC and other interested
parties).

The TC is very resistant to new words to be added to the CORE wordset; these
are words that even the most minimal compliant system must provide, and
there's already a lot of feeling that there are too many of them! IMO a
more promising place would be the "Programming Tools" wordset. Even so, I'm
_personally_ a little dubious that there's enough need or demonstrated
existing practice for these words to justify inclusion in the standard.

So far as I recall, the only "new" technology that's been added to ANS Forth
has been words intended to resolve conflicting common practice (e.g., S" and
C" to resolve ambiguous definitions of " ) and features exercised for
several years during the standardization process (e.g. the FILES wordset,
CATCH/THROW).

Cheers,
Elizabeth
(chair, J14 ANS Forth Technical Committee)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sftalk-admin_at_forth.com [mailto:sftalk-admin_at_forth.com]On Behalf Of
> Appert, Kevin
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 9:30 AM
> To: 'sftalk_at_forth.com'
> Subject: RE: [sftalk] NEW ANS FORTH WORDS PROPOSAL
>
>
> Might there be a better forum for ANS discussions? comp.lang.forth
> comes to mind. There was an ANS-FORTH mailing list at one point and you
> might ask around among the committee members from the last go-around what
> discussions are under way. This deserves a wider, ANS-focused
> audience. If
> FORML gets restarted (in Reno or Las Vegas?) that would be a good forum.
> As long as we are off-topic, another point you might want to keep in
> mind is that the standard CODIFIES EXISTING PRACTICE.
> This is from the charter and seems to have been ignored at times
> even by the
> last round of standardizers
>
> > ----------
> > From: Jerry Avins[SMTP:jya_at_ieee.org]
> > Reply To: sftalk_at_forth.com
> > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 10:51 AM
> > To: sftalk_at_forth.com
> > Subject: Re: [sftalk] NEW ANS FORTH WORDS PROPOSAL
> >
> > Jabari Zakiya wrote:
> > >
> > > NEW ANS FORTH WORDS PROPOSAL
> > > Jabari Zakiya jzakiya_at_mail.com
> > > 3rdeye Technology, LLC
> > > --------------------------------
> > >
> > > Proposed Words to CORE wordset: +GROW -GROW GET PUT
> > ...
> > >
> > > Compilation Behavior
> > > --------------------
> > > Each of these words will have a compile time behavior and a
> > > run time behavior similar to that for PICK and ROLL.
> > > When used inside a colon definition, the run time behavior
> > > code will be compiled if no literal value is compiled
> > > preceeding the word, such as in : FOO1 ROT GET ;
> > > If a literal preceeds these words within a colon defined
> > > word then the literal is compiled directly into the
> > > instruction by the compler, e.g. in : FOO2 ROT 3 GET ;
> > >
> > ...
> >
> > I haven't thought enough yet to comment on the worth of these ideas. One
> > issue that comes immediately (pun?) to mind is that these words get
> > their arguments either from the stack or from the source code, depending
> > on circumstance. This is an optimization issue, and needn't be part of
> > the definitions.
> >
> > Jerry
> > --
> > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sftalk mailing list Sftalk_at_forth.com
> > Visit Sftalk on the web at
http://www.forthinc.com/mailman/listinfo/sftalk
>

_______________________________________________
Sftalk mailing list Sftalk_at_forth.com
Visit Sftalk on the web at http://www.forthinc.com/mailman/listinfo/sftalk
Received on Fri Nov 24 2000 - 12:41:46 PST