Subject: Document SC22 N2170

From: "william c. rinehuls" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:57:00 -0400 (EDT)

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

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
N2170

June 1996

TITLE:                 Summary of Voting on CD Registration for:
                       Object Oriented Extgensions for Modula-2

SOURCE:                Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22

WORK ITEM:             JTC 1.22.18.02

STATUS:                N/A

CROSS REFERENCE:       SC22 N2068

DOCUMENT TYPE:         Summary of Voting

ACTION:                The CD has been registered as 10514-3.

                       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 document.

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]

____________________________________________________________________________

                        SUMMARY OF VOTING ON

Letter Ballot Reference No:   SC22 N2068
Issued by:                    JTC 1/SC22
Circulation Date:             1996-02-14
Closing Date:                 1996-05-30

SUBJECT:  CD Registration for:  Object Oriented Extensions for Modula-2

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

"P" Members supporting registration
       without comments:                      9

"P" Members supporting registration
       with comments:                         2

"P" Members not supporting registration:      3

"P" Members abstaining:                       3

"P" Members not voting:                       4

Secretariat Action:

The CD Has been registered as CD 10514-3.

The comment accompanying the abstention vote from Sweden was:  "Due to
lack of expert resources".

The comments accompanying the negative votes from the United Kingdom and
the USA, and the comments accompanying the affirmative votes from Austria
and the Netherlands have been forwarded to SC22/WG13 for preparation of a
Disposition of Comments Report and a recommendation on the further pro-
cessing of the CD.

____________________________________________________________________________
                 ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22  LETTER BALLOT SUMMARY

PROJECT NO:    JTC1.22.18.02

SUBJECT:  CD Registration for:  Object Oriented Extensions for Modula-2

Reference Document No:  N2068           Ballot Document No:  N2068
Circulation Date: 02-14-1996            Closing Date:  05-30-1996 
                                                              
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)       ( )       ( )
Germany         ( )       (X)       ( )       (X)       ( )
Japan           ( )       ( )       (X)       ( )       ( )
Netherlands     (X)       ( )       ( )       (X)       ( )
Romania         ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )       (X)
Slovenia        (X)       ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
Sweden          ( )       ( )       (X)       (X)       ( )
Switzerland     (X)       ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
UK              ( )       (X)       ( )       (X)       ( )
Ukraine         (X)       ( )       ( )       ( )       ( )
USA             ( )       (X)       ( )       (X)       ( )

'O' Members

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

Comments Accompanying Austrian Vote:

"Yes with comments:

It seems questionable, to say the least, if the additional complexity
introduced by "safe"/"UNSAFE" modules is worth the effort, given that it
seems very few programs would really contain only safe modules in "real
world" application, and that even "safe" modules may break in the presence
of unsafe ones.  Is there sufficient rationale and support for this
feature, or should it just be dropped?

The procedure COROUTINES.DISPOSECOROUTINE (section 6.8.6) seems confusing.
Why is there a parameter, and why is it a VAR parameter?  Could an example
be provided?

___________________________________________________________________________

Comments Accompanying Netherlands Vote:

"There are some difficulties understanding the procedure DISPOSECOROUTINE
in the module COROUTINES:

     The module has a parameter, which means that _ any _ coroutine may
     be 'aborted' this way.  It is unclear why this is.  Could some
     rationale and examples be given?

     Will objects be finalized during abortion?

     The parameter is a VAR-parameter.  What will be the value of the
     actual after the operation has taken place?

     Will the RETURN-FROM-COROUTINE exception be raised during abortion?

___________________________________________________________________________