Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?

On 2024-07-01 14:13, Krishna Myneni wrote:

On 7/1/24 04:02, Ruvim wrote:

On 2024-07-01 05:49, Krishna Myneni wrote:

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.

In Forth-94:
   <http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/dpans16.htm>
   <http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/dpansa16.htm>
   <http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/a0002.htm>

 For the specification of SET-ORDER with argument -1 replacing "minimum" with "minimal" would avoid some confusion.

Wiktionary says that they are synonyms:
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/minimum#Adjective>
--
Ruvim