Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?

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 -