1. Forum
  2. Newsgroups
  3. comp.lang.forth

  • Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?

    From Anthony Howe@achowe@snert.com to comp.lang.forth on Sat Sep 21 15:37:21 2024
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.forth

    On 2024-07-01 05:02, Ruvim wrote:
    And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search order" (as an
    example), will this solve the problem?

    Minimum functional search order?
    --
    Anthony C Howe
    achowe@snert.com BarricadeMX & Milters http://nanozen.snert.com/ http://software.snert.com/ --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From Ruvim@ruvim.pinka@gmail.com to comp.lang.forth on Sun Sep 22 21:52:31 2024
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.forth

    On 2024-09-21 23:37, Anthony Howe wrote:
    On 2024-07-01 05:02, Ruvim wrote:
    And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search
    order" (as an example), will this solve the problem?

    Minimum functional search order?


    Good idea!

    Similar variants:
    - minimum usable search order
    - minimum operable search order
    - minimum operative search order
    - minimum operational search order

    --
    Ruvim
    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From Anthony Howe@achowe@snert.com to comp.lang.forth on Sun Sep 22 14:02:56 2024
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.forth

    On 2024-09-22 13:52, Ruvim wrote:
    On 2024-09-21 23:37, Anthony Howe wrote:
    On 2024-07-01 05:02, Ruvim wrote:
    And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search order" (as
    an example), will this solve the problem?

    Minimum functional search order?

    I like `functional`.



    Good idea!

    Similar variants:
      - minimum usable search order
      - minimum operable search order
      - minimum operative search order
      - minimum operational search order

    And this one -----^ `operational`

    But I think as long as the wording makes clear its not the empty set, pick something nice and use consistently should be good.
    --
    Anthony C Howe
    achowe@snert.com BarricadeMX & Milters http://nanozen.snert.com/ http://software.snert.com/ --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From Ruvim@ruvim.pinka@gmail.com to comp.lang.forth on Mon Sep 23 00:21:39 2024
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.forth

    On 2024-09-22 22:02, Anthony Howe wrote:
    On 2024-09-22 13:52, Ruvim wrote:
    On 2024-09-21 23:37, Anthony Howe wrote:
    On 2024-07-01 05:02, Ruvim wrote:
    And if the term "minimum search order" is renamed to "small search
    order" (as an example), will this solve the problem?

    Minimum functional search order?

    I like `functional`.



    Good idea!

    Similar variants:
       - minimum usable search order
       - minimum operable search order
       - minimum operative search order
       - minimum operational search order

    And this one -----^ `operational`


    The word "operational" seems to have a stronger connotation with
    operators and interactive use than "functional".



    But I think as long as the wording makes clear its not the empty set,
    pick something nice and use consistently should be good.



    Agreed.


    --
    Ruvim

    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114