Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?

On 3/07/2024 7:59 pm, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

In article <6684b834$1@news.ausics.net>, dxf  <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:

On 3/07/2024 11:04 am, Krishna Myneni wrote:

...
In both the specification of SET-ORDER and ONLY, the standard states, "The minimum search order shall include the words FORTH-WORDLIST and

SET-ORDER."
>
What is one expected to do with 'FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER'?  It's information like this
that's lacking, leaving it to the user's imagination.  Nor will one get clarification from
200x since by this time principal users have a vested interest in leaving things ambiguous.
>

 
At least to me this is clear.
FORTH-WORDLIST 1 SET-ORDER
is supposed to get Forth under control.
Traditionally done with
ONLY FORTH

Won't that mess up the "minimum search order" scenario described in A.16:

 "In some systems the interpretation of numeric literals is controlled by including
  pseudo word lists that recognize numbers at the end of the search order. This
  technique is accommodated by the default search order behavior of SET-ORDER when
  given an argument of -1."