From rinehuls@access.digex.net Thu Apr 24 00:19:25 1997 Received: from access5.digex.net (qlrhmEbBUV1EY@access5.digex.net [205.197.245.196]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA18373 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 00:19:23 +0200 Received: from localhost (rinehuls@localhost) by access5.digex.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id SAA04742 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 18:19:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 18:19:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "william c. rinehuls" To: sc22docs@dkuug.dk Subject: SC22 N2456 - Comments Disposition on CD 10514-3 - Modula-2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ___________________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 N2456 April 1997 SUBJECT: Disposition of Comments Report 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: Upon receipt of the final text, the Secretariat will forward it to ISO/IEC ITTF for DIS ballot. CROSS REFERENCE: SC22 N2221, N2354 DOCUMENT TYPE: Disposition of Comments Report ACTION: To SC22 Member Bodies for information. 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: rinehuls@access.digex.net _____________________end of title page; beginning of text _____________ ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG13 D248 Disposition of Comments on CD 10514-3 (Object Oriented Modula-2) Status: This document represents the results of discussions at the 12th meeting of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG13 at Linz, March 17-18, 1997. Summary: The proposal on Object Oriented Modula-2 generated a number of comments during CD Ballot. The purpose of this paper is to allow WG13 to respond back to the National Bodies. Format: The comments of the National Bodies are given in alphabetical order. They have been interspersed with the Working Group's responses. 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. Response: The project editor is directed to add a new subclause to chapter 6.8 (Changes to the Base Language) that clarifies the position of the new 'class' type within the type system of the base language and also clarifies the applicable compatibility rules. 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). Response: This point is covered by the action to be taken on comment 1. 3) Several editorial comments will be sent to the editor in a separate message. Response: The project editor is directed to make the necessary corrections pointed out in such remarks. 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 module any more 'unsafe' than 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. Response: The project editor is directed to change the keyword UNSAFE to UNSAFEGUARDED. 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. Response: The project editor is directed to a) make the definition of the term 'class type' more explicit; b) add a new subclause to chapter 6.8 (Changes to the Base Language) that clarifies the position of the new 'class' type within the type system of the Base Language and also clarifies the applicable compatibility rules; c) add the definition of the term 'class type' to the glossary. 2) The document should further clarify the compatibility between references (as defined in this Standard) and pointers (as available in the Base Language). Response: This point is covered by the action to be taken on comment 1. 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. Response: The project editor is directed to add a clarifying note to the definition of the "declaration semantics" of an abstract class (subclause 6.1.3). 4) Several typing errors will be brought to the attention of the editor separately. Response: The project editor is directed to make the necessary corrections pointed out in such remarks. USA Comment accompanying the "NO" vote from the USNB: 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 flawed; accordingly, extensions to that International Standard are inappropriate. Response: As stated in the responses to comments on the base standard, and also in response to an identical comment on a previous version of this proposal, WG13 believes the base standard is not flawed. Thus, WG13 believes that it is appropriate to consider extensions to the Base Language. The current comment does not identify any specific new issues not already dealt with in the responses to comments on the Base Language and that require a new response. __________________ end of document SC22 N2456 ___________________