billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (Steve Bollinger) (01/25/89)
Has anybody else noticed that Lightspeed Pascal (2.0) does not support negative field widths in write/writeln statements to left justify numerical output? 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. 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. +----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Bollinger | Internet: billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu | | 4297 Sulgrave Dr. +------+---------------------------------------------+ | Swartz Creek, Mi. 48473 | "My employer doesn't take my opinion any | +-----------------------------+ more seriously than you do." | | "You remember the IIe, it +---------------------------------------------+ | was the machine Apple made before they decided people didn't need | | machines with big screens, color, or slots." | | - Harry Anderson (from NBC's Night Court) | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ags@s.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) (01/28/89)
In article <410fcecb.a590@mag.engin.umich.edu> billkatt@sol.engin.umich.edu (Steve Bollinger) writes: >Has anybody else noticed that Lightspeed Pascal (2.0) does not support negative >field widths in write/writeln statements to left justify numerical output? What's wrong with using a field width of 1? This also left-justifies numerical output, and it has the additional advantage of being correct Pascal. -- Dave Seaman ags@j.cc.purdue.edu
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (01/28/89)
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.