Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?

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.
--
Krishna