Sujet : Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?
De : krishna.myneni (at) *nospam* ccreweb.org (Krishna Myneni)
Groupes : comp.lang.forthDate : 01. Jul 2024, 02:49:06
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v5t1ui$sl14$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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.
-- KM
0 SET-ORDER why?
Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?
