From rinehuls@access.digex.net Fri May 15 01:36:31 1998 Received: from access4.digex.net (qlYBsVTekvXHY@access4.digex.net [205.197.245.195]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09142 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 01:36:28 +0200 Received: from localhost (rinehuls@localhost) by access4.digex.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id QAA24206; Thu, 14 May 1998 16:34:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:34:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "william c. rinehuls" To: sc22docs@dkuug.dk cc: keith brannon Subject: SC22 N2715 - Disposition of Comments Report for DIS 10514-2 - Generics in 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 N2715 TITLE: Disposition of Comments Report for DIS 10514-2: Information technology - Programming languages - Modula-2, Part 2: Generics in Modula-2 DATE ASSIGNED: 1998-05-14 SOURCE: Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 BACKWARD POINTER: N/A DOCUMENT TYPE: Disposition of Comments Report PROJECT NUMBER: JTC 1.22.18.04 STATUS: N/A ACTION IDENTIFIER: FYI DUE DATE: N/A DISTRIBUTION: Text CROSS REFERENCE: SC22 N2613 DISTRIBUTION FORM: Def Address reply to: ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Secretariat William C. Rinehuls 8457 Rushing Creek Court Springfield, VA 22153 USA Telephone: +1 (703) 912-9680 Fax: +1 (703) 912-2973 email: rinehuls@access.digex.net ______________ end of title page; beginning of report ____________________ Disposition of Comments Report on DIS 10514-2 (Information technology - Programming languages - Modula-2, Part 2: Generics in Modula-2) Status: This document constitutes the responses to comments generated in the final round of voting on IS 10514-2 Summary: The IS for generic programming extensions to Modula-2 generated a number of comments during the second voting cycle. The purpose of this paper is to allow WG13 to respond to the National Bodies. Format: The comments from the national bodies have been reproduced exactly as passed to the author and these have been interspersed with the suggested responses. In the case of the United States comments, numbering has been added. Germany: DIN votes YES with the following (editorial) comments: a) section "1.4 Specifications not within the scope this part of this multi-part standard"; Add "of" after the word "scope" Response: The project editor has made this correction. b) section "4.7 Errors", last paragraph: Change the NOTE to read as follows: "The intent of this provision is to alow a version of Modula-2 to support _e.g._ both genericity and object orientation _(see ISO 10514-3)_." [= add "e.g." and delete "if a standard ... were ... adopted"] Reason: Documents that have reached DIS level may be referenced directly. Response: The project editor has made this correction, but spelling out "for example". c) section "6.2.4 Generic Implementation Module", subsection "Semantics", 3rd paragraph: change "distinct from each _an_other" to "distinct from each other". Response: The project editor has made this correction. d) section "6.2.4 Generic Implementation Module", Example 1: In the procedure "Pop", add a semicolon (";") after "DEC(stackPtr)". Response: The project editor has made this correction. e) section "6.2.5 Refining Definition Module", subsection "Examples", 1st line: change "Annex 4" to "Annex D". Response: The project editor has made this correction. f) section "6.2.6 Refining Implementation Module", Example 4, 2nd line: change "for example _3_ in clause 6.2.4" to "for example _2_ in clause 6.2.4_:_" [= fix the nbr and add a colon at the end] Response: The project editor has made this correction. g) section "6.2.9 Nested Module Refinement Order", 2nd paragraph, 2nd line: "contains _a_ refining local module, ..." [= add "a"] Response: The project editor has made this correction. h) section "6.4 Refining Local Module Declarations", NOTE 1: replace "shall be visible" by "_needs to_ be visible". [A note must not contain a "shall".] Response: The project editor has made this correction. i) section "6.4 Refining Local Module Declarations", subsection "Semantic Notes", item a: replace "the name of which shall be visible ..." by "... needs to be visible ...". Response: The project editor has made this correction. j) section "6.4 Refining Local Module Declarations", subsection "Semantic Notes", item a: replace "The translator is required to detect and _correct_ this error" by "... detect and _report_ this error". [The translator can't correct the error.] Response: The project editor has made this correction. k) section "6.4 Refining Local Module Declarations", NOTE 2 (in Example 2): "... without also having Stacks and _Validate_ present." ["Validate" instead of "Validation"] Response: The project editor has made this correction. l) section "6.5.2 Actual Module Parameters", subsection "Concrete Syntax": make the first 2 lines consistent [= either delete "module" from the right hand side of the definition of "actual module parameters=...", or start the second line with "actual _module_ parameter list=..."]. (Don't forget to do the same in Annex B, "Collected Concrete Syntax".) Response: The project editor has made this correction, using "actual module parameter list" in both places. m) Annex C, section "C.1 General", 3rd line from bottom: "See (3) and (5) for a full discussion ..." [= fix the references] Response: The project editor has made this correction. n) Annex C, section "C.2.1 Genericity at compile time", last line: "... and be difficult to implement." [= delete "too" from "too difficult" as it can be done of course - it is just burdensome on the implementor] Response: The project editor has made this correction. o) Annex C, section "C.2.2 Constant/Type parameters instead of Module names", 2nd paragraph: "The use of local refining _modules_ ..." [add an "s"]. Response: The project editor has made this correction. p) Annex C, section "C.2.10 Leaving the END in refining modules", 1st line: "is _in_ some sense redundant" [add "in" after "is"]. Response: The project editor has made this correction. q) Annex C, section "C.3 Possible Future Work": remove the ":" after the heading Response: The project editor has made this correction. r) Annex D, section "D.2 Examples from clause 6.2.3, 6.2.4": In the IMPLEMENTATION MODULE CardStack, adjust "Push" and "Pop" to correctly reflect the current version [= switch the statement sequence inside "Push" and "Pop", and add a ";" after "DEC(stackPtr)"]. Response: The project editor has made this correction in three places. Also, add a blank between "body" and "initialisation" in the 3rd line from the end of IMPLEMENTATION MODULE CardStack. Response: The project editor has made this correction in three places. s) Annex D, section "D.3 Examples from clause 6.3 (local refinements)"; Change heading to "... clause 6.4 ..." [= fix the reference]. Response: The project editor has made this correction in three places. t) Annex D, section "D.3", Example 1: adjust "Push" and "Pop" (each occurs twice!) to correctly reflect the current version [= switch the statement sequence inside "Push" and "Pop", and add a ";" after "DEC(stackPtr)"]. Response: The project editor has made this correction in three places. u) Annex F, "Participating individuals": Fix the annex nbr ("F" instead of "E"), and add "in" (or "of") in the 2nd line of the text ("... as the nominated experts _of/in_ ISO/IEC ..."). Response: The project editor has corrected the annex letter both here and in the table of contents and has made the second correction using "of." Japan Japanese National Body does not find any interest in standardization of the proposed subject, and has consistently shown its position in JTC1 ReEngineering discussions as well as in project reviews of SC22. Japanese National Body, therefore, has no groups organized to review the proposal from the technical points and abstains on this matter. Response: No substantive issues are raised in this comment. United States 1. As the USNB stated in its response to the CD 10514-2 on this project, the USNB believes that the base standard ISO/IEC 10514 is badly flawed and believes that there is no point in developing extensions to that document. Response: As stated in the responses to comments on the base standard, and also in response to an identical comment on two previous versions of this proposal, WG13 believes the base standard is not flawed. Thus, WG13 believes that it is appropriate to consider extensions to the base standard. The current comment does not identify any specific new issues not already dealt with in the responses to comments on the base standard and that require a new response. 2. As a procedural comment, the USNB would point out that the title of the DIS is different from that of the CD document as balloted which used the title: CD 10514-2: Modula-2: Extensions for Systems Programming. No explanation for this change was offered in the DIS. Response: The 1996 SC22 Plenary changed the project's title. The following resolution is taken from ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 N2301 October 1996. WG13 believes that this change need not be further documented. TITLE: Resolutions Prepared at the Ninth Plenary Meeting of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 on September 23-27, 1996 in London, United Kingdom Resolution 96-8: Change of Title for Project JTC 1.22.18.04 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 approves the change of title for Project JTC 1.22.18.04 from "Modula-2 Extensions for System Programming" to "Generics in Modula-2". __________________________ end of SC22 N2715 _________________