🚀 go-pugleaf

Does VAL introduce an abiguity into Modula-2?  Consider:
    :
    :
PROCEDURE Foo: INTEGER;  BEGIN RETURN 0; END;
    :
...VAL(POINTER TO ..., Foo)...;

How does the compiler decide whether "Foo" in this position denotes a
PROCEDURE or the INTEGER returned from an invocation of Foo?  I realize that
VAL is particularly machine dependent, and that my example above may only have
meaning for a particular, known, implementation;  even so, this appears to be
allowed and ambiguous.  In particular, I wonder why Wirth allows invocation to
be specified with or without the empty argument list;  this redundancy seems
particularly strange when contrasted with the spareness of the rest of the
language.

	    --Darryl Richman, INTERACTIVE Systems Corp.
	    ...!cca!ima\
			>-!ism780c!darryl
	    ...!sdcrdcf/
	    The views expressed above are my opinions only.

P.S.  The implementation I use, from Wirth's group, has an "implementation
restriction" and requires that I include the empty argument list when I want
an invocation.  In ambiguous circumstances such as this, I must code
"VAL(POINTER TO..., ADR(Foo))", if I want the PROCEDURE and "VAL(POINTER
TO..., Foo())" if I want the invocation.