Group: comp.lang.forth · Group Profile
Author: Aleksej SaushevAleksej Saushev Date: Aug 9, 2008 10:30
> Aleksej Saushev writes:>>> Oh, you intend them as replacements for GET-ORDER and SET-ORDER. Hmm,
>>> one reason might be that, for full replacement, you also need a
>>> SEARCH-ORDER-EMPTY? word or somesuch
> ...
>>My thought was ORDER-DEPTH.
>
> Yes, that's consistent with having DEPTH.
>
>>Even if >ORDER and ORDER> with something to make them complete
>>won't replace GET-ORDER and SET-ORDER, it would be nice to see
>>them in the standard due to the frequence of usage.
>
> Yes. Will you make an RfD?
I have no time for that currently, will you do it instead?
There exists efficiency defect: most of the time access to
search order is reading only, and it looks like PICK ("ORDER-PICK"?).
This should be handled too, in my opinion.
I'd make some experimental work first.
--
CE3OH...
| 
