Article View: comp.lang.modula2
Article #3519Re: Significant Changes to M2
From: Claudio Nieder
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1986 15:49
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1986 15:49
36 lines
1647 bytes
1647 bytes
My comments to the report released by the Modula II working group:
WG106: I support (i).
WG113: But does that allow one-pass compilers to be 'standard compilers'?
The same question arises when you consider the scope rules.
PIM-3 allows you to write:
PROCEDURE p;
BEGIN
i:=1;
END p;
VAR i: INTEGER;
If the Modula standard says this is ok, then there will be no
one-pass compiler which can be compatible to the standard.
WG118: MIN, MAX not for REAL? Why?
WG119: I support to use only SIZE for types and variables.
WG084: Why? Are there any cases where you define something in a definition
module which you don't want to export? Show me an example!
--
claudio
(* ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I'm not working for ETH-Zurich! I'm just a CS student.
E-Mail: UUCP: claudio@ethz.uucp
BITNET: K538912@CZHRZU1A
Mail: Claudio Nieder, Kanalweg 1, CH-8610 Uster, Switzerland.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- *)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<409@ethz.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!claudioReferences:
<8610201143.1439@ur-cayuga.arpa>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!claudio From: claudio@ethz.UUCP (Claudio Nieder) Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2 Subject: Re: Significant Changes to M2 Message-ID: <409@ethz.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Nov-86 10:49:42 EST Article-I.D.: ethz.409 Posted: Tue Nov 18 10:49:42 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 18-Nov-86 21:38:58 EST References: <8610201143.1439@ur-cayuga.arpa> Reply-To: claudio@ethz.UUCP (Claudio Nieder) Organization: CS Department, ETH Zuerich, Switzerland Lines: 36