Subject: SC22 N2715 - Disposition of Comments Report for DIS 10514-2 - Generics in Modula-2

From: "william c. rinehuls" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:34:47 -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
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:  [email-masked]

______________ 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 _________________