Sujet : Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?
De : ruvim.pinka (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Ruvim)
Groupes : comp.lang.forthDate : 22. Sep 2024, 21:21:39
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vcpu8k$25spg$6@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 2024-09-22 22:02, Anthony Howe wrote:
On 2024-09-22 13:52, Ruvim wrote:
On 2024-09-21 23:37, Anthony Howe wrote:
On 2024-07-01 05:02, Ruvim wrote:
And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search order" (as an example), will this solve the problem?
>
Minimum functional search order?
I like `functional`.
>
>
Good idea!
>
Similar variants:
- minimum usable search order
- minimum operable search order
- minimum operative search order
- minimum operational search order
And this one -----^ `operational`
The word "operational" seems to have a stronger connotation with operators and interactive use than "functional".
But I think as long as the wording makes clear its not the empty set, pick something nice and use consistently should be good.
Agreed.
-- Ruvim
0 SET-ORDER why?
Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?
