5 - Forth Interest Group

of classical Forth.. . And
Forth did have a viable
solution, didn't it? And
the ANSI team is propos-
ing a language that ignom
this solution, isn't it"
We'd sure appreciate it if
you'd share this "viable solu-
tion" with us, John. And
please be specific, rather than
vaguely alluding to "classical
Foa" so we can consider
your proposed language for
incorporation.
We believe ANS Forth is
extensible, and would very
much like to know exactly
what you feel is compro-
mised. As you seem to have
a high regard for precise lan-
guage, well be grateful if
you'd offer us some as an
example.
Your discussion of
START : would be helpll,
except that Mitch has already
told you that we agreed there
was a problem with
BASIS 15's definition and
fmed it. Well look forward
to seeing whether y w agree
that it is fixed in dpANS-2.
There are probably a lot more
areas in which clarity can be
improved, and appreciate
people pointing out other
specific instances.
"I think it is a truly unwise
strategy for the ANSI team
to propose a new lan-
guage and then use strong
arm tadics to get its ac-
ceptance rushed throughn
We have no intention of
doing so, and couldn't if we
did. The public review pro-
cess is deliberately lengthy,
in order to ensure as much
feedback as possible.
"It will do a great deal of
harm for the survival of
Forth to accept a bad
standard-and I don't
think anyone should re-
gard it as fate that we
must do so."
We heartily agree. We
look forward to hearing from
lots of people in the public
review process.
Figure Eight. Code for the stack class.
\ oofstack.fth 910723 rwb
\ MESSAGE