MICHAEL.RYS@p0.f42.n105.z1.fidonet.org (MICHAEL RYS) (04/25/90)
From: mrys@ethz.UUCP (Michael Rys) Date: 23 Apr 90 16:43:02 GMT Organization: ETH Zuerich, Switzerland Message-ID: <4243@ethz.UUCP> Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2 > Talking about different IMPORTs In Oberon you say: IMPORT S:TextScanner; ... sym := S.GetSym(); ... Fyi.../Michael +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael Rys, V. Conzett Str. 34; CH-8004 Zuerich; Switzerland | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | UUCP: mrys@ethz.UUCP or EAN: mrys@ifi.ethz.ch | | mrys@bernina.UUCP IPSANet: mrys@ipsaint | | Voice: +41 1 242 35 87 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ -- Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus logico-philosophicus -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!42.0!MICHAEL.RYS Internet: MICHAEL.RYS@p0.f42.n105.z1.fidonet.org
TOM.REID.X4505@p0.f42.n105.z1.fidonet.org (TOM REID X4505) (04/26/90)
From: reid@CTC.CONTEL.COM (Tom Reid x4505) Date: 24 Apr 90 19:20:14 GMT Organization: The Internet Message-ID: <9004241920.AA02174@ctc.contel.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2 > The Professor is a wise man. Could it be that, knowing he could not specify > the ONE TRULY CORRECT AND SIMPLE way of doing this, he chose to write > libraries sufficient to his immediate needs but _intentionally_ not attempting > sufficiency to a general solution (presuming there actually is one)? > Don't forget that Modula/Modula-2 were machine implementation languages and the language was (probably) secondary to the implementation of Lilith. While we are musing, could it not also be that his graduate students were the implementors (both design and code) following his general guidelines? Disclaimer: All the above is speculation. Tom. Thomas F. Reid, (703)818-4505 (work) Contel Technology Center (703)742-8720 (home) 15000 Conference Center Drive Net: reid@ctc.contel.com P.O. Box 10814 Chantilly, Va. 22021-3808 s -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!42.0!TOM.REID.X4505 Internet: TOM.REID.X4505@p0.f42.n105.z1.fidonet.org
AUBREY.MCINTOSH@p0.f42.n105.z1.fidonet.org (AUBREY MCINTOSH) (04/27/90)
From: aubrey@rpp386.cactus.org (Aubrey McIntosh) Date: 25 Apr 90 16:14:26 GMT Organization: vima, Austin TX Message-ID: <18253@rpp386.cactus.org> Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2 In article <4360.2631732F@puddle.fidonet.org> Ernie.Bokkelkamp@p1.f22.n491.z5.fidonet.org (Ernie Bokkelkamp) writes: >On 16 Apr 1990 17:42, Peter M. Perchansky (1:273/101@Fidonet) wrote: >Now on the point of importing and libraries. One facility definitely missing is a documentation system for Modula-2 libraries. What I mean is some kind of utility, that can be used to capture descriptions of modules and the procedures, etc within, and that can produce a structured printout (similar to the format as used in the JPI-M2 user manual) of all libraries. An elegant way to do this could be an "informal" extension to the module concept by having a "DOCUMENTATION MODULE" added to the DEFINITION M O> ********************************* everywhere I say 'cross reference', I mean the M2Format.exe program. :-) One thing that I did to handle this was to make creative use of the cross reference utility provided with Logitech's 3.0 system. n.b. that later versions of the cross reference utility have been 'fixed,' (like fixing a cat--it used to work). Anyway, I use this structure: PROCEDURE (* Nifty comment, carefully thought out, well edited *) DoStuff ( p1: t1; pn: tn ); The cross reference utility program has a mode where it lists the lines of code that define a symbol. With the above style of commenting procedures, the alphabetized listing documents what the procedure does, as well. -- Aubrey McIntosh "Find hungry samurai." -- The Old Man 1502 Devon Circle comp.os.minix, comp.lang.modula2 Austin, TX 78723 1-(512)-452-1540 (v) o -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!42.0!AUBREY.MCINTOSH Internet: AUBREY.MCINTOSH@p0.f42.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Ernie.Bokkelkamp@p22.f1.n491.z5.fidonet.org (Ernie Bokkelkamp) (04/30/90)
On 25 Apr 1990 17:44, George Emery (1:105/369.42) wrote: GE>There should be enough information in the definition modules (in GE>the form of comments) that anyone can read it and use it. Or are you GE>talking about interdepencies of the modules... I've seen several No. What I suggest is an utility that will process all relevant files and produces an reference book for all libraries so that I can take my book and look up what I need to know instead of browsing all DEF files. GE>More elegant is to have the writer of the module put the GE>necessary information in comments inside the definition module. That is if the "documenter" is also the writer, but when I take somebody's code and want to add comments then preferably the DEF file should not be changed. Cheers Ernie -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!5!491!1.22!Ernie.Bokkelkamp Internet: Ernie.Bokkelkamp@p22.f1.n491.z5.fidonet.org
dcw@doc.ic.ac.uk (Duncan C White) (05/02/90)
Hi all, In article <4768.263B00CF@puddle.fidonet.org> Peter.M..Perchansky@f101.n273.z1.fidonet.org (Peter M. Perchansky) writes: >Hello: > > Wirth did not screw up in any fashion by not setting a standard for > libraries. That is the job of "standard commitees." That's not the whole story. If the initial designer of a language does a good job (as Wirth did with Pascal, as Kernighan & Ritchie did with C) then after defining the language proper, the designer should define a reasonable core set of facilities - especially I/O, but also string handling, garbage collection (if appropriate) and possibly a few other things - that users may expect to be available with all compilers for that language. This ensures at least a measure of basic portability of source code between systems using a single language, during the decade or so that will typically pass before any standards organisations get involved. Some years later, a consensus may emerge that the whole language needs re-examining, various undefined aspects needs defining, various non portable assumptions need modifying in the light of experience, and that the "base level" of portable facilities needs raising, and then a standards committee gets formed, has many discussions and comes up (eventually) with a newly "standardised" version of the language AND ITS LIBRARIES. This seems like a very sensible way to manage change. But it doesn't absolve the language designer from the responsibility of providing a reasonable standard library at the beginning. > The C language did not have a "standard anything" until recently. > Even though the ANSI standard for C has just come out, only 2 compilers > come close to 100% compliance. Therefore, how portable is C??? Not in the limited sense of "an ANSI/ISO/BSI standard", but in reality, C has had a well defined portable set of library routines with well understood (if not defined!) semantics, for roughly the last 15 years. Similarly, Pascal had an accepted and well understood IO system (read, write et al) many years before there was any such thing as a "standard" Pascal. But not Modula-2 - well, it has InOut et al, I suppose.. Duncan >-- >uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!273!101!Peter.M..Perchansky >Internet: Peter.M..Perchansky@f101.n273.z1.fidonet.org PS: I notice that no-one has as yet come up with a portable Modula-2 version of that simple program I wrote in Pascal.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Duncan White, | "Once people start going about killing Dept. Of Computing, | people, people have to take very special Imperial College, | measures against certain people, don't London SW7 | people? Even if it means people taking England. | frightful risks" | Lovejoy, "Gold from Gemini", Email: dcw@doc.ic.ac.uk | written by Jonathan Gash