Xref: utzoo comp.lang.modula2:3774 comp.lang.modula3:204
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!seagoon.newcastle.edu.au!cc.newcastle.edu.au!eepjm
From: eepjm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.modula3
Subject: Re: Two Oberon questionsREAD/NEW/FOLLOWUP
Message-ID: <1991Apr15.143313.9980@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Date: 15 Apr 91 04:33:11 GMT
References: <1991Apr12.104304.4194@jyu.fi>
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Lines: 29

In article <1991Apr12.104304.4194@jyu.fi>, sakkinen@jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen)
 writes:
>   ...
> Second question:
> Can function procedures in Oberon return structured values?
> In Modula-2 they cannot, but in Modula-3 this defect has been corrected.
> Again, the language definition carefully avoids saying anything
> (which would imply "yes"), but neither is this mentioned as a difference
> from Modula-2 (which would imply "no").

For some time now I have been telling my students that Modula-2 removed the
rather pointless Pascal restriction on the type of a function result.  I
based this claim on two observations:
(a) the M-2 compiler which I use does allow structured values to be
    returned;
(b) Wirth's books on the subject avoid saying anything about it (which, as
    above, implies "yes").
Am I wrong?  If so, to whom do I complain?  Surely we don't have to go back
to forcing M-2 programmers to memorise the totally artifical distinction
between "structured" and "unstructured".

Peter Moylan                   eepjm@cc.newcastle.edu.au

P.S. (Totally different topic, but while I think of it .... Does the
      emerging Modula-2 standard say how to declare a structured constant?
      This is something which definitely needs standardising : most
      compiler writers recognise that there must be a facility to declare,
      for example, an array of constants, but so far this feature has not
      been portable.)