🚀 go-pugleaf

Hallo,

here are my comments to the changes desribed in Barry's paper. I give comments
only for those topics were I especially agree or disagree. I take a neutral
position on all other items.

WG104: full agreement.
WG007: Why dropping them. OK, they are obsolete, but you have to change a lot
       of existing software (see also my comments at the bottom of this).
WG106: (i)  why not truncate if f > t?
       (ii) keep the language simple !!!
WG131: full agreement.
WG035: full agreement (especially the remark about the names).
WG113: full agreement. (see also below)
WG115: same as WG007.
WG120: be carefull!! I like it, but is it really a good idea??
WG109: full agreement.
WG084: full agreement !!!!! (see also below)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are two comments on the whole standardization item:

1.) a few days ago there was a posting to Info-Modula-2 (I can't remember
    the senders name) which stated that the standardization team should avoid
    changing the definition of the language whenever it is possible.
    --> The posting is rigth. My opinion on this is: Even if it is necessary
    to change the language definition, try to avoid it. How can somebody
    expect to introduce M2 as a clean and convenient way to implement software
    if he changes the proposed rules to often.
2.) I would extend the scope of 1.) to the developers of M2 too. I hate the
    idea that a nice language should be changed only to (for example) allow
    one-pass compilation. In this case it is better to implement the new
    feature under a new name (e.g M3).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here some questions:

1.) Is it true that coroutines have been droppen in PIM-3? Why? Is it
because they are a question of the implementation? In this case they are
pontentially allowed. Or is it because N.W. doesn't like the ideas of
coroutines any longer? Then see my comment 2.) above.

2.) What is the exact syntax of the FORWARD declaration? Is it the same
(***** self-zensored *****) thing as in PASCAL, or is there a better syntax
this time?


Regards

Martin Knoblauch <XBR2D96D@DDATHD21.BITNET>