Standard Compatibility [was: Re: New Alpha]_(re)

Thu, 3 Apr 1997 09:19:45 -0800 (PST)

>Although gpc ain't a commercial product it should be build on wide 
>acceptance.

I agree.

>In past nobody was interested in any pascal-standards but Borland.
I disagree.  Borland did not write ISO 7185 and 10206.  If they did,
those standards would look a lot different.  Units would be part of
the standard, which they are not.

>Borland-Pascal IMHO is the standard-pascal anyway.
I disagree.  

>gpc really shall default to borland/turbo-pascal behaviour. You could
I disagree.

I did like the suggestion that gpc could be started from several links,
gpc (ie. ISO standard Pascal/ISO Extended Pascal) and bpc (Borland Pascal).
I do believe that gpc should support(emulate) Borland Pascal to support
Borland Pascal users.  But gpc should not standardly be Borland.  

>I agree too, but why should
>{-------------snip-------------}
>i:=7;
>writeln("i=",i);
>{-------------snip-------------}
>give somthing like
>
>"i=             7 ?"

Because that is how a majority of Pascal compilers do it.  And to ask a
furthur question, why should
{-------------snip--------------}
for i := 1 to 5 do write(a[i]);
writeln;
{-------------snip--------------}
produce output for which you can not distinguish the elements of a?

>nb. The Borland Pascal behaviour conforms to ISO 10206 too. How about
Are your sure about this?  Full Extended Pascal?  From my exprience,
it violates 6.10.3.6.  (and 6.9.3.6 in ISO 7185.)  If there is a way
to make it not violate the above quoted paragraphs, I'd really like 
to know how.

-- 
Phil Nelson                       NetBSD: http://www.netbsd.org
e-mail: phil@cs.wwu.edu           LPF: http://www.lpf.org
http://www.cs.wwu.edu/~phil       !gifs: http://www.lpf.org/Patent/Gif/Gif.html

Phil Nelson (phil@cs.wwu.edu)