Well, the discussion on declaration of "output" has probably been adequately covered (the answer to which is, of course, that it's only required if standard output is used, explicitly or implicitly. Since "internal" error messages are often handled separately on many (most?) OSes, these aren't an implicit use of "standard output"). For anyone interested, declaration of "output" has two effects - it automatically declares the text file variable "output" and it issues a "rewrite" (according to Kathleen and Niklaus;-).
As for "out-of-order declarations", these ARE permitted by ISO standard ISO-10206 (aka. Extended Pascal).
BTW, I too, disagree with the way that responses to list messages are normally directed to the originator, rather than the list. Maybe if we all share this opinion, we can persuade whoever is responsible to change this?
Joe.
-----Original Message----- From: CBFalconer [SMTP:cbfalconer@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 4:38 AM To: J. David Bryan; gpc mail-list Subject: Re: compiler bug
"J. David Bryan" wrote:
On 11 Oct 2001, at 18:59, CBFalconer wrote:
... snip ...
I believe that generally it would be most helpful to the GPC maintainers
if
you could separate into the smallest complete programs each of the
missed
syntax errors you noted (i.e., create the smallest possible test case
for
each reported problem). For example, the first error appears to be
caused
by an out-of-order declaration, so:
program t1;
procedure p; begin end; var x: integer;begin end.
...should do it. Your help in improving the quality of GPC will be appreciated.
Your sample above has two faults. It should specify at least (output) in the command line, and it has the illegal declaration portion. Both of which are minor, but contrary to strict standards. PascalP has a flag to allow some of the out-of-order declarations. So:
------ snip ------
Well, the discussion on declaration of "output" has probably been adequately covered (the answer to which is, of course, that it's only required if standard output is used, explicitly or implicitly. Since "internal" error messages are often handled separately on many (most?) OSes, these aren't an implicit use of "standard output"). For anyone interested, declaration of "output" has two effects - it automatically declares the text file variable "output" and it issues a "rewrite" (according to Kathleen and Niklaus;-).
As for "out-of-order declarations", these ARE permitted by ISO standard ISO-10206 (aka. Extended Pascal).
BTW, I too, disagree with the way that responses to list messages are normally directed to the originator, rather than the list. Maybe if we all share this opinion, we can persuade whoever is responsible to change this?
That has been tried before :-)
On 15 Oct 2001, at 15:35, da Silva, Joe wrote:
[...]
BTW, I too, disagree with the way that responses to list messages are normally directed to the originator, rather than the list. Maybe if we all share this opinion, we can persuade whoever is responsible to change this?
I really hope that we will not start another thread on this topic. People should get to know their mail readers, and use the facilities thereby provided for replying to all recipients, or to sender.
Best regards, The Chief --------- Prof. Abimbola Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) Author of Chief's Installer Pro for Win32 Email: African_Chief@bigfoot.com http://www.bigfoot.com/~african_chief/
da Silva, Joe wrote:
As for "out-of-order declarations", these ARE permitted by ISO standard ISO-10206 (aka. Extended Pascal).
Yes, and not in 7185. I've fixed it now (it was easier than I'd expected :-), i.e. now GPC will flag them as errors with `--standard-pascal' (only).
Frank
-
da Silva, Joe -
Frank Heckenbach -
marcov＠stack.nl -
Prof. A Olowofoyeku (The African Chief)