Sujet : Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?
De : ruvim.pinka (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Ruvim)
Groupes : comp.lang.forthDate : 01. Jul 2024, 10:02:11
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v5tral$10nj0$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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?
-- Ruvim
0 SET-ORDER why?
Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?
