Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!uwvax!oddjob!hao!ames!lll-lcc!ptsfa!well!tenney
From: tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: New Forth standards
Message-ID: <3607@well.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Jul-87 01:51:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: well.3607
Posted: Thu Jul 23 01:51:34 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 06:37:55 EDT
References: <1403@crash.CTS.COM>
Reply-To: tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 24
Summary: rumor?

In article <1403@crash.CTS.COM> billk@crash.CTS.COM (Bill Kelly) writes:
>
>Roumor has it that FST (Forth Standards Team) has gone into their 
>"technical proposal" phase for the next Forth standard.  I believe, but
>am not sure, that the next standard will leave the existing '83 standard
>pretty much alone.  If I remember correctly, they are working on covering
>extensions to Forth.  Things like floating point, file i/o stuff, etc.
>...
>Bill Kelly      {hplabs!hp-sdd, ihnp4, sdcsvax}!crash!billk
>
>		"I hate operating systems!"  --GMK

Hmmm...  As a referee of the FST, this is news to me.  I haven't
heard anything about any effort by the FST.  Maybe you know more
about it than I do, since, as I understand it, you are related to the
"GMK" mentioned in your .signature (GMK = Guy Kelly, President of the FST).
If Guy is doing something officially or otherwise, I for one would like
to be told about it directly rather than innuendo and supposed rumor.

Glenn Tenney
p.s.
Contrary to Guy Kelly's incorrect statement, I was the only member of
the FST to officially vote (in writing and received in a timely fashion
by the secretary of the FST) in opposition to the '83 standard.