Re: [colorforth] Dare I say ANS!

["Howerd Oakford" <howerd.oakford@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Roman,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roman Pavlyuk (personal)" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <colorforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [colorforth] Dare I say ANS!


[snip]

> My 2c to all this discussion: I do not care about compatibility with FIG,
> F83, ANSI, whatever, because for more or less long term projects (we all
> like these, don't we? :) there's a big sense in not using any legacy code
> nor any third party components (at least, w/o thorough code review). So,
for
> me it's better have all primitives documented rather that rely of knowing
> that semantics has not changed.
Certainly all primitives should be documented, but surely it is better if
words in the ANS standard only exist in colorForth if they have the same
functionality? ANS does at least provide standard names, and I have spent
unecessary time wondering about i , ?dup, - and a few others because I
assumed I knew what they did, but was wrong. OK, I know now, but why subject
ANS Forth programmers to such annoyance for the sake of a few name changes?

Regards

Howerd



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com