Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?

On 1/07/2024 9:02 pm, dxf wrote:

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

...
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.

The more I look at it and what different systems return after -1 SET-ORDER the more
I'm confused as to what one is supposed to do after executing it - since in many
cases it's clear it is *not* the "default search order".  As for 0 SET-ORDER the
situation is even more precarious given A.16.  ISTM ANS could/should have done a
better job documenting this stuff as it was 'new practice'.