🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <22494A72H0006B6C1H@p.froehlich.amc.cube.net>,
Peter Froehlich <p.froehlich@amc.cube.net> wrote:
>> What position is that? What has been true three years ago must not be true
>> today.
>
>   I  think the position I spoke of is pretty clear to most of us:  The ETH
>gives us a language and that's it.  No further discussion needed.
>
>   I was going to argue about the "what was true" thing when I noticed that
>you  _might_  indicate  that the ETH position is changing.  Is that so?  Is
>there  hope for a ETH workgroup getting together with "us out here" to work
>on Oberon-3?
In my opinion, no. But if the industry would come up with some additions to
Oberon-2, which the users agree on, my guess is that ETH wouldn't object.

The handful of commercial compiler writers should get together and push
Oberon-2 into the mainstream. That's not ETH's task. If ETH should act as a
clearing house for extensions, then again the commercial people should do some
lobbying and seek the dialog.

Regards,

  Stefan H-M Ludwig              mailto:ludwig@inf.ethz.ch
                                 http://www-cs.inf.ethz.ch/~ludwig
  Institute for Computer Systems
  Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)
  CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland

  Phone: 41-1-632 7301
  Fax  : 41-1-632 1307