Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!reed!reeder
From: reeder@reed.UUCP (Doug Reeder)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal
Subject: Re: Another simple question (BSI/ISO Pascal)
Message-ID: <13428@reed.UUCP>
Date: 18 Oct 89 22:46:16 GMT
References: <115@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> <115@tacitus.tfic.bc.ca>
Reply-To: reeder@reed.UUCP (Doug Reeder)
Organization: Institute of Knowledge, Jinx
Lines: 27


In article <115@tacitus.tfic.bc.ca> clh@tfic.bc.ca (Chris Hermansen) writes:

>Does anyone care to offer an explanation/excuse as to why most Pascal
>implementors have totally screwed up the I/O?  For example, adding the
>so-called `interactive' file type, file pointers that become undefined
>when there's actually something in the file, etc etc?

>The last I recall, a generally acceptable solution to implementing
>Pascal I/O was using `lazy I/O', as in:
...

My experience writing a Pascal Compiler is that is lazy i/o is a pain to
implement, as input must be treated differently than all other files, but
not wildly difficult.  The compiled code is surprisingly simple.  In fact,
the Pascal file paradigm, normaly a pain, made eof() amazingly simple.
There is really no excuse for compilers not to implement lazy i/o.





-- 
Doug Reeder                          USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!reeder
Box 722 Reed College                 BITNET: reeder@reed.BITNET
Portland, OR 97202                from ARPA: tektronix!reed!reeder@berkeley.EDU
(503) 777-1551                  "A blaster can point two ways."  -Salvor Hardin