Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!DDATHD21.BITNET!XBR2D96D From: XBR2D96D@DDATHD21.BITNET (Knobi der Rechnerschrat) Newsgroups: net.lang.mod2 Subject: RE: Significant Changes to M2 Message-ID: <8611040832.18670@ur-cayuga.arpa> Date: Tue, 4-Nov-86 05:49:03 EST Article-I.D.: ur-cayug.8611040832.18670 Posted: Tue Nov 4 05:49:03 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 4-Nov-86 10:45:36 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 49 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