Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!husc6!endor!siegel
From: siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: LS PAscal gripe
Message-ID: <1098@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 89 19:49:15 GMT
References: <410fcecb.a590@mag.engin.umich.edu>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel)
Organization: Symantec/THINK Technologies, Bedford, MA
Lines: 30

In article <410fcecb.a590@mag.engin.umich.edu> billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (Steve Bollinger) writes:
>Everybody else DOES!  Rich, could you see to it that this goes into version
>2.1?  I don't see how it could be that big a trouble to add.

	I'm not all-powerful, and I can't "see to it" that ANYTHING gets
done. The best I can do is to make a recommendation. If it's approved,
I'll probably write it.

	[If it were my option, yes, I'd put it in.]

>A question for everyone (even Rich).  Is this yet another indication that
>THINK is out to just produce a program that 'meets the specs' Pascal-wise?
>I would think that they would strive to have the best compiler on the market
>in every way possible.

	We try for strict ANSI compliance in Lightspeed Pascal, since some
of our large-volume customers insist on an ANSI-compliant Pascal for the
Macintosh.

		--Rich

Rich Siegel
Staff Software Developer
THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp.
Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu
UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel
Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305

Any opinions stated in this article do not necessarily reflect the views
or policies of Symantec Corporation or its employees.