Subject: SC22 N2456 - Comments Disposition on CD 10514-3 - Modula-2

From: "william c. rinehuls" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 18:19:17 -0400 (EDT)

___________________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:  [email-masked]

_____________________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 ___________________