From: g_dotzel@tron.gun.de (Guenter Dotzel)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2
Subject: Re^2: argc and *argv in Modula-2 ?
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 07:00:03 GMT

> From: epang@fraser.sfu.ca (Eugene Pang)
> Subject: Re: argc and *argv in Modula-2 ?
> Message-ID: <epang.702956630@sfu.ca>
> Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
> 
> g_dotzel@tron.gun.de (Guenter Dotzel) writes:
> >             Yes, there is a Standard way! See my previous message(s)
> >             with an example using the ISO M2 Standard I/O-Lib!
> ...
> However, it seems that there aren't any ISO compliant M2 compilers or ISO
> standard libraries released in North America.  So, it's hard to refer to
> a "Standard way" and expect others to be able to use it--particularly, when
> you have everyone else at a disadvantage...you have a working compiler based
> on a draft of the standard, right?.  Everyone else seems reluctant to release
> an updated version of their compilers until the standard is adopted.

Eugene,

Even our M-2 compiler implementatiom is not fully ISO M-2 conformant yet.
But we've already delivered the full set of the ISO M-2 Standard I/O-
and number-string conversion library.
Our customers are *now* able to develop portable applications based on the
*not yet adopted Standard Library*.
The modules RealMath, LongMath, ComplexMath, LongComplexMath and Strings
will be delivered with MVR V3.17 by the end of Apr '92.
I know of a Mac MPW implementation of the I/O-Library also done in Germany.
We are in cooperation with the author of MCS (MCS Modula-2 Cross System
for Un*x platforms) and plan to port our library implementation for MCS.

I don't believe that other compiler developers will wait until ISO M-2 gets
*officially* adopted. For me its final. All knock-out conditions of the
national bodies have been resolved at the Tuebingen ISO-meeting in Jul'91.
Now or never! (except maybe for the never ending story with 
exception handling, protection and termination.)

Why can't we wait for official adoption of ISO M-2?

Counting only the voting period of 6 months + administration offset, 
we end up in 1993. 
Allow some further 6 months for implemention and field testing. 
Allow some 6 months for the community to get aware of the new Standard and
that conforming implementations are available. 
Also allow some months for users to learn how to use the library. 
We could finally start talking about ISO M-2 I/O-example programs in 1995.

If there is no pressure from the Modula-2 users' community, the compiler
developers will continue to provide their own set of library modules.

> So, while I appreciate your examples...I'm both envious and peeved that I
> can't test them.  *sigh*

I looked up my dictionary to figure out what "envious" and "peeved" is.
Oh, I see! So here is my question:

Provided we port our ISOM2IO library to the DOS platform for Taylor, SB or JPI
M-2. How many would be interested in this library and how much would you be
willing to pay for it? I know your answers: 

- not at all interested in ISOM2IO (don't like it, don't know about it)
- we'll do our own implementation
- we'll wait for a public domain implementation
- we'll wait for the next major release of our favorite compiler

Cheers, G~unter

Guenter Dotzel, ModulaWare GmbH, Wilhelmstr. 17A, D-W 8520 Erlangen/F.R.Germany
Tel. +49 (9131) 208395, Fax +49 (9131) 28205. 
E-mail/Internet:  g_dotzel@ame.nbg.sub.org 
E-Mail/CompuServe:100023.2527@compuserve.com 

Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2