Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond
From: diamond@csl.sony.co.jp (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal
Subject: Re: No Obfuscations yet.
Message-ID: <11017@riks.csl.sony.co.jp>
Date: 27 Oct 89 01:10:59 GMT
References: <467@e-street.Morgan.COM>
Reply-To: diamond@riks. (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 34

In article <467@e-street.Morgan.COM> amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) writes:

>So since nobody wants to talk about Obfuscation, what about interest in a
>more recent standard? In particular; do Pascal programmers want to standardize
>some widespread extensions to the language?

Yes, and it has been done.  Demand one from your vendor.

>I think we ought to standardize:
>
>1. The Unit construction for separate compilation.

This is called "Module."

>2. Function and procedure types, (again as found in most of your PC Pascals).

Unfortunately this was not done.

>3. What about some kind of extensible arrays? Are conformant arrays what we
>   want or should we go for something different?

We went for something a lot more powerful, called Schemata.  Varying-
length strings appear as a result of schemata, as well.

>4. Objects and methods as in Object Pascal. Are these Pascal? Are they good?

This was not done.  Anyone who wants it done, (anyone who wants it done
right, that is), please offer me a job.

-- 
Norman Diamond, Sony Corp. (diamond%ws.sony.junet@uunet.uu.net seems to work)
  Should the preceding opinions be caught or     |  James Bond asked his
  killed, the sender will disavow all knowledge  |  ATT rep for a source
  of their activities or whereabouts.            |  licence to "kill".