According to pege:
From pege Thu Nov 23 19:21:21 1995
Subject: Re: borland extensions ("PS") To: Jukka.Virtanen@hut.fi Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 19:21:21 +0100 (MEZ) In-Reply-To: Pine.BSD.3.91.951122221113.395X-100000@kampi.hut.fi from "Jukka Virtanen" at Nov 22, 95 10:19:12 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 1297
Hello again!
I find that the extended pascal is a good language in itself, but I agree that there are far too many borland programs around to ignore them.
I think there is yet another reason: When you want to do lo-level programming in Pascal, you *need* the Borland extensions. (Or, you must write large parts in assembler, which is also non-ISO.) And there are more examples where things can easily be done with Borland Pascal but are very uncomfortable or even impossible with Extended Pascal.
(Also, the object pascal language looks nice and would be fun to support. Any volunteers? :-)
The Borland "nonstandard" supports objects, so the object pascal language already *is* implemented in some sense -- I expect that only a few names must be changed. If a volunteer wants to imple- ment Object Pascal: It won't be too much work!
Yours,
Peter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dipl. Phys. Peter Gerwinski Fachbereich Physik Universitaet-GH Essen Phone: +49-201-183-2763 D-45117 Essen Fax: +49-201-183-2120 Germany e-mail: pege@mail.theo-phys.uni-essen.de --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dipl. Phys. Peter Gerwinski Fachbereich Physik Universitaet-GH Essen Phone: +49-201-183-2763 D-45117 Essen Fax: +49-201-183-2120 Germany e-mail: pege@mail.theo-phys.uni-essen.de --------------------------------------------------------------------------------