compiler bug

[CBFalconer]

"da Silva, Joe" wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> What do you consider "Standard"??? As far as I'm
> concerned, ISO-10206 is the standard to which GPC
> aspires, so why should GPC regard the above as an
> error, when this is clearly permitted by ISO-10206.
> IMHO, ISO-7185 should not be regarded as if it's the
> one and only Pascal standard. Prospero call this
> version of the language "Classic Pascal", to distinguish
> it from "Extended Pascal". I like that idea. I don't think
> it helps Pascal's image to always refer to ISO-7185 as
> THE Pascal standard, since this gives the impression
> of a very restricted and limited language, which is not
> something that Pascal deserves. I think we should
> promote the ISO-10206 standard, not pretend there is
> only one Pascal standard. (Rant over ;-)

What is ISO-10206, and where is it available?

At the same time, GPC should be able to check various portability
levels.  If the source conforms to a standard, it is compilable
under systems that support that standard.  If we can't tell it
conforms, we can't very well put a stamp on it.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer at yahoo.com) (cbfalconer at XXXXworldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   (Remove "XXXX" from reply address. yahoo works unmodified)
   mailto:uce at ftc.gov  (for spambots to harvest)