On the subject of missing "output" as a program parameter, or in the more general case, where the program header has no parameters at all (assuming of course "input" and "output" are neither explicitly nor implicitly used), Peter Grogono (in his book 'Programming in Pascal') says words to the effect of : It is legal to omit the parameters from the program header, provided neither "input" or "output" is used, however, a program which provides no input or output is generally not very useful. The above has an element of humour in it, but makes it quite clear that it is perfectly legal to omit "input" and/or "output" from the program header if these are not used. Note that the above is not an exact quote, just from memory, however, I could spend a bit of time to locate the exact text, if required. On the subject of standards, please see below ... Joe.

-----Original Message----- From: J. David Bryan [SMTP:dbryan@bcpl.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:04 AM To: GNU Pascal List Subject: Re: compiler bug

On 16 Oct 2001, at 20:34, Frank Heckenbach wrote:

...

I don't see a big difference between `--standard-pascal' and `--iso-pascal'....

I don't either, except it removes the possibly misleading word "standard" (implying that "standard-pascal" is standardized or preferred, whereas "extended-pascal" is not -- I hope I now take Joe's point correctly :-).

[Joe da Silva] Yes, you do! :-) I find that awareness of the Extended Pascal Standard is unsatisfactory, and in promoting Pascal, we need to improve this. IMHO, we should avoid any inference that ISO-7185 is the only standard, likewise any inference that Extended Pascal is non-standard.

...

(EP is also ISO).

Hence the suggestion of "--iso-extended-pascal". The title pages of the respective standards say, "Pascal" and "Extended Pascal," so my suggestion

incorporated those titles in the switch names.

...

So if anything, I'd tend to `--classic-pascal' or so.

"Classic Pascal" is meaningless to me (it's actually more suggestive of some variant with proprietary extensions, as the ISO standard was never "classic" in the sense that it was the version that everyone used; GPC is the first Pascal compiler I've used -- and I've used many -- that provides

a strict ISO 7185 option).

[Joe da Silva] "Classic" is a perfect description of ISO-7185 (thanks, Prospero), since it corresponds exactly (well, with just one change, suggested by Wirth) to the language originally defined in the 'User Manual and Report' published by Jensen and Wirth, in 1974. An alternative description would be "minimalist", but "classic" sounds much nicer! <g>

I'm happy with "--standard-pascal" and "--extended-pascal" if everyone else is.

...

And every user who uses the option would have to change it ...

Which may be the best argument for leaving it alone.

-- Dave