Subject: SC22 N2354 - Vote Summary for CD 10514-3: Modula-2 Extensions

From: "william c. rinehuls" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 19:25:27 -0500 (EST)

__________________beginning of title page _________________________
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces
Secretariat:  U.S.A.  (ANSI)

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
N2354

December 1996

TITLE:            Summary of Voting on CD Ballot for: CD 10514-3:
                  Information technology - Programming languages,
                  their environments and system software interfaces -
                  Object Oriented Extensions for Modula-2

SOURCE:           Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22

WORK ITEM:        JTC 1.22.18.02

STATUS:           N/A

CROSS REFERENCE:  SC22 N2221

DOCUMENT TYPE:    Summary of Voting

ACTION:           To SC22 Member Bodies for information.

                  To WG13 for preparation of a Disposition of Comments
                  Report and a recommendation on the further processing
                  of the CD.

Address reply to:
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Secretariat
William C. Rinehuls
8457 Rushing Creek Court
Springfield, VA 22153  USA
Tel:  +1 (703) 912-9680
Fax:  +1 (703) 912-2973
email:  [email-masked]

_______________end of title page; beginning of summary ________________

                        SUMMARY OF VOTING ON

Letter Ballot Reference No:   SC22 N2221
Circulated by:                JTC 1/SC22
Circulation Date:             08-13-1996
Closing Date:                 12-02-1996

SUBJECT:  CD ballot for CD 10514-3: Information technology - Programming
          languages, their environments and system software interfaces -
          Object Oriented Extensions for Modula-2

The following responses have been received on the subject of approval:

"P" Members supporting approval
       without comment                    14

"P" Members supporting approval
       with comment                        3

"P" Members not supporting approval        1

"P" Members abstaining                     2

"P" Members not voting                     2

"O" Members supporting approval
       without comments                    1

Secretariat Action:

The comment accompanying the abstention vote from France was:  "Lack of
resources."

The comment accompanying the affirmative votes from Austria, Germany
and the Netherlands and the comments accompanying the negative vote
from the USA are attached.

WG13 is requested to prepare a Disposition of Comments Report and make
a recommendation on the further processing of the CD.

____________________end of summary; beginning of detailed summary _____
                 ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22  LETTER BALLOT SUMMARY

PROJECT NO:    JTC1.22.18.02

SUBJECT:  CD Ballot for CD 10514-3: Information technology - Programming
          languages, their environments and system software interfaces -   
          Object Oriented Extensions for Modula-2

Reference Document No:  N2221           Ballot Document No:  N2221
Circulation Date: 08-13-1996            Closing Date:  12-02-1996 
                                                              
Circulated To: SC22 P, L                Circulated By: Secretariat

SUMMARY OF VOTING AND COMMENTS RECEIVED

                 Approve  Disapprove Abstain Comments   Not Voting
'P' Members

Australia          (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Austria            (X)      ( )       ( )       (X)       ( )
Belgium            ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       (X)
Brazil             (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )    
Canada             (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
China              (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Czech Republic     (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Denmark            (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Egypt              (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Finland            (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
France             ( )      ( )       (X)       (X)       ( )
Germany            (X)      ( )       ( )       (X)       ( )
Japan              ( )      ( )       (X)       ( )       ( )
Netherlands        (X)      ( )       ( )       (X)       ( )
Romania            (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Russian Federation (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Slovenia           (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Sweden             ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       (X)
Switzerland        (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
UK                 (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Ukraine            (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
USA                ( )      (X)       ( )       (X)       ( )

'O' Members

Argentina          ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Bulgaria           ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Cuba               ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Greece             ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Hungary            ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Iceland            ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
India              ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Indonesia          ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Italy              ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Korea Republic     (X)      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
New Zealand        ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Norway             ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Poland             ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Portugal           ( )      ( )       (X)       ( )       ( )
Singapore          ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Thailand           ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Turkey             ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Yugoslavia         ( )      ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )

__________________end of detailed summary; beginning of comments ______

            COMMENTS ACCOMPANYING NEGATIVE VOTE FROM THE USA

As the USNB has indicated in its earlier balloting on what is now 
ISO/IEC 10514-1, Programming languages, Modula-2, the USNB believes that
that International Standard is badly flowed; accordingly, extensions to
that International Standard are inappropriate.

                 COMMENTS ACCOMPANYING AFFIRMATIVE VOTES

Austria:

"ON votes 'Yes' on document ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22/N2221 (CD ballot for CD 
10514-3, Object Oriented Extensions for Modula-2) with the following
comments:

1) The implementation of the new 'class' type on the type system and type 
compatibility in general should be discussed in more detail.

2) It should be further clarified which subset of the base standard can be 
used in conjunction with 'class' types (e.g. type conversion) and object
references (as opposed to pointers).

3. Several editorial comments will be sent to the editor in a separate 
message."

Germany

"The DIN vote regarding CD 10514-3 'Object Oriented Extensions for Modula-2
reference number ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 N2221, dated 96-08-13 is:

   YES with comment

Comment:

DIN considers the use of the keyword UNSAFE (sections 5.1, 6.6, 6.8.1) 
as very improper.

The actual characteristic of an 'unsafe' (= current terminology) module is 
that the programmer does not wish to rely on the automatic garbage
collection for deallocating objects.  This can have many reasons (e.g.
real time performance requirements) and does NOT make the modula any more 
'unsafe'as any other Modula-2 program.

Therefore DIN strongly urges to change the keyword UNSAFE into something 
that does not contain any evaluation of what is good programming style.
Potential alternatives are NOGCC (no garbage collector control), NONGCC,
NOTGCC, NONAUTO or NONAUTOOBJ (no automatic objects).  However, DIN is
willing to accept other words so long as they do not evaluate for the 
programmer what is good or bad programming style."

Netherlands

"The NNi approves document ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22/N2221 (CD ballot for CD 
10514-3 Object oriented extensions for Modula-2) with the following
comments:

1) In this document the term 'class type' has been used without precise 
definition.  This term should be properly defined and the definition
should be added to Annex C.  In particular compatibility between class
types and types as defined in the base standard should be more precisely 
defined.

2) The document should further clarify the compatibility between references 
(as defined in this standard) and pointers (as available in the base
language).

3) It should be clarified whether a type denoting an abstract class may be 
used:
   - as an argument type for function procedures and procedures
   - as a function procedure return type
   - as an input or output type for a type conversion
   - as a type for ISMEMBER.

4) Several typing errors will be brought to the attention of the editor 
separately."

____________________ end of document SC22 N2354 _________________________