One of the listed bugs of GPC was "modules without implementation". However, if I understand EP correctly, this actually doesn't concern `interface' modules (as in pmodtest.pas without the `implementation' part): : Each identifier having a defining­point as a module­identifier in a : module­heading of a module­ declaration containing the interface­directive : interface shall have exactly one of its applied occurrences in a : module­identification of a module­declaration containing the : implementation­directive implementation. In contrast, the following works in GPC (with an almost empty module-block): module fjf843m; export fjf843m = all; const OK = 'OK'; end; end. What seems to be missing is this variant (no module-block at all), and I'll add it in the next release (that's easy to do): module fjf843m; export fjf843m = all; const OK = 'OK'; end. However, AFAICS, EP doesn't require to support `interface' modules without implementation. That's good because GPC has to know when compiling a module whether there will be an implementation part (because it has to create the initializer if (and only if) not). It also seems reasonable to me from the programmer's point of view. When you write a module interface, you know whether there has to be an implementation (namely, if there are any routines in the interface or an initializer or finalizer will be needed) or not (only constants, types and variables without need for initialization/finalization). So it makes sense to specify this explicitly (by writing `interface' or not). Can anyone confirm my interpretation? Frank -- Frank Heckenbach, frank@g-n-u.de, http://fjf.gnu.de/, 7977168E GPC To-Do list, latest features, fixed bugs: http://www.gnu-pascal.de/todo.html GPC download signing key: 51FF C1F0 1A77 C6C2 4482 4DDC 117A 9773 7F88 1707