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.