Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?

On 1/07/2024 8:13 pm, Krishna Myneni 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.

In the rationale A.16 the phrase "default search order" is used along with an explanation.