Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!claudio
From: claudio@ethz.UUCP (Claudio Nieder)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2
Subject: Re: Significant Changes to M2
Message-ID: <409@ethz.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Nov-86 10:49:42 EST
Article-I.D.: ethz.409
Posted: Tue Nov 18 10:49:42 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Nov-86 21:38:58 EST
References: <8610201143.1439@ur-cayuga.arpa>
Reply-To: claudio@ethz.UUCP (Claudio Nieder)
Organization: CS Department, ETH Zuerich, Switzerland
Lines: 36

My comments to the report released by the Modula II working group:

WG106: I support (i).

WG113: But does that allow one-pass compilers to be 'standard compilers'?
       The same question arises when you consider the scope rules.
       PIM-3 allows you to write:

	PROCEDURE p;

	BEGIN
	 i:=1;
	END p;

	VAR i: INTEGER;

       If the Modula standard says this is ok, then there will be no
       one-pass compiler which can be compatible to the standard. 

WG118: MIN, MAX not for REAL? Why?

WG119: I support to use only SIZE for types and variables. 

WG084: Why? Are there any cases where you define something in a definition
       module which you don't want to export? Show me an example!

-- 
				claudio

(* ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Disclaimer: I'm not working for ETH-Zurich! I'm just a CS student.

E-Mail: UUCP:   claudio@ethz.uucp
        BITNET: K538912@CZHRZU1A
  Mail: Claudio Nieder, Kanalweg 1, CH-8610 Uster, Switzerland.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- *)