Minutes of FIGGY BAR RT Conference.

Date: 05/24/90   Time: 22:00EDT
Attendees:
[[Gary] GARY-S]
[[Len] NMORGENSTERN]
[[Kevin] APPERT]

   ITEM DISCUSSED: Suggestions for the x3/j14 Tech Committee meeting at the
                   time of this FIGGY. The suggestions were forwarded that
                   same evening to Dennis Ruffer who was participating in
                   the meeting. 
Minutes:
<NMORGENSTERN> is here.
<[Gary] GARY-S> any shots for the TC ?
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> No, I was working on an error trap, but I didn't
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> get it reaady in time for George Shaw to review.
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> I am mainly concerned that no other proposal gets adopted
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> because I think mine is better than any other
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> I have seen. But I have to admit
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> that I am not sure that mine is ready to be adopted as a 
standard.
<APPERT> is here.
<[Gary] GARY-S> Error trapping is one of their hot issues this time.
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> I dislike cattch-throw for a number of reasons.
<[Kevin] APPERT> your what Len?
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> My error-trap. It's called NETS
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> I presented it at Austin in 88, but have improved it.
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> It now will handle coroutines and recursion.
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> (Much better than catch-throw) but then it's my baby.
<[Gary] GARY-S> What all do you trap on ? underflow, overflow, incomplete 
constructs ?
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> It's up to the programmer to decide when he/she wants
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> to fall into a net & back out.
<[Kevin] APPERT> it's hard to believe ANYBODY considers any error trapping 
common practice.  Are they making up a new language as they go along.  they
 should call it something other than Forth
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> I concede that. I was commenting to Gary that I would not
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> want to see any other proposal adopted, because mine is 
better,
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> but I am not sure that mine is ready for standardization.
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> I am planning to write it up in Forth Dimensions, and
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> then we will see what the comments are.
<[Gary] GARY-S> Kev may have a good point - is this one of those extra bells 
Forth does not really want to shackle it's bell cow with ?
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> I have to agree that nothing is worse than a premature 
standard.
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> One advantage of crystallizing practice is that
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> you know it works if a lot of people use it.
<[Gary] GARY-S> an overladen one might not be so good either
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> On the other hand, if you wait until everybody uses, say,
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> error trapping, then there are so many kinds around
<[Len] NMORGENSTERN> that it's chaos.
<[Gary] GARY-S> Kev - any comments to forward to the TC ?
<[Kevin] APPERT> they seem to ignore the part of the ANSI charter which 
encourages them to codify existing practice and not experimental proposals.  t
his is a lot of what is objectional about the 83 standard.  to much stuff which 
hadn't seen much use...
<[Kevin] APPERT> let alone popularity.  I have been assured I don't understand 
the "highly technical reasons why everything the comm. does is correct.
..
<[Kevin] APPERT> but I still would think that a standard produced by the rules..