Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!cvedc!nosun!qiclab!m2xenix!puddle!p101.f4.n494.z5.fidonet.org!Pat.Terry
From: Pat.Terry@p101.f4.n494.z5.fidonet.org (Pat Terry)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2
Subject: Re: Topspeed
Message-ID: <755.268A1B0B@puddle.fidonet.org>
Date: 27 Jun 90 15:40:00 GMT
Sender: ufgate@puddle.fidonet.org (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 5:494/4.101 - Settler City Fido, Grahamstown RSA
Lines: 44


 >     Ola, at present there is no "standard" for the Modula-2 language other 
 > than a "defacto" standard put forth by N. Wirth in PIM3 & PIM4.

Reluctantly agreed.

 > 
 >     JPI TopSpeed Modula-2 does conform the the "defacto" standard in PIM3.

Oh yea?  I can think of at least one non-extension example where it does not

   DEFINITION MODULE x;
     PROCEDURE y;
   END x.

   IMPLEMENTATION MODULE x;
     MODULE INNER
       EXPORT y (*standard*);
       (* IMPORT y - JPI *)
       PROCEDURE y;
       END y;
     END INNER;
  END x.

Wit a few minutes more i could find several others.

 >     As to creating a portability issue...  the programmer is given 
 > complete control as to use only features found in PIM3 or to use PIM3 plus 
 > the extensions.

Not really.  He has no hint from the JPI compiler as to when he/she is using 
an extension.  Any compiler that claims any "conformance + extension" nonsense
should, IMHO, provide this.

Please note that I am not against extensions per se.  I just want them to be  
flagged.
 




--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!5!494!4.101!Pat.Terry
Internet: Pat.Terry@p101.f4.n494.z5.fidonet.org