Re: name for 3 PICK finally?

Jerry Avins <jya@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Coos Haak wrote:
> 
>    ...
> 
> > Why would a name like 3PICK be good? ...
> 
> Because we already have 2PICK.

Some of us do.  ;)

I don't want to argue about this issue. If they call it 3PICK I'll
probably understand what they're doing, especially if the code has stack
diagrams on each line.

I don't have to use it myself, unless someday it starts looking like a
good idea.

if it isn't going into a standard I want to comply with, then I don't
have to add it to any Forth systems. Unless I want to ****t code that
uses it, and then it looks very very easy.

The original question was which name is best. I think 3PICK is best.
It's better than FOURTH because a lot of people instinctively know what
it means.  Question answered. Do I want to use it? No. Does somebody
else want to use it? Yes. Do they want my advice? I say, it's better to
avoid PICK if you reasonably can. I say it's better to use 3 PICK than
3PICK if you need PICK . That's my advice and everybody's welcome to
follow it if they want to, or ignore it if they prefer that. 

Does somebody disagree with me about any or all of this? You're welcome
to. You're welcome to write in Forth however you like. I warn you that
if you then give me your code for free and I don't like it, I won't use
it. ;)

That is the extent of your obligation to my opinions. If you write Forth
code that I dislike too much, I will modify it to suit myself or I will
ignore it completely, and if you want me to really *appreciate* your
code as written then you should do it my way. ;) ;)