da Silva, Joe
Joe.daSilva at emailmetering.com
Thu Jun 6 02:31:07 CEST 2002
I've been following this debate and wondering just what the ISO standards
define. As you know, it's not easy reading through the standards and
finding obscure little details such as this. <g>
However, I think section 6.13 of ISO-10206 indicates that a program can
indeed consist of multiple modules and can include one main program,
each of which is terminated by a "full stop" (aka. "period").
Also, regarding EOLN and EOF, section 220.127.116.11 indicates that "When
eoln(f) is activated, it shall be an error if ... eof(f) is true".
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Heckenbach [SMTP:frank at g-n-u.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 8:00 PM
> To: cbfalconer at worldnet.att.net; gpc at gnu.de
> Subject: Re: Pascal-Standard Question
> CBFalconer wrote:
> > Frank Heckenbach wrote:
> > > Eike Lange wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 10:16:21AM -0400, CBFalconer wrote:
> > > > > Put in those terms, he is absolutely right IMO. Anything that
> > > > > follows the "end ." should be ignored, in fact not even read. The
> > > > > period should be parsed and cause compilation to stop. I think
> > > > > the syntax is something like:
> > > > >
> > > > > program ::= 'program' progparms ';' declarations block '.'
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but there might be a statement like this (not exactly BNF :-)
> > > > part ::= program or unit
> > > > file ::= part until EOF
> > >
> > > Yes, I'd also think so. Normally, a grammar doesn't imply that
> > > anything may follow the program.
> > >
> > > However, BP behaves like this, and GPC does so with
> > > `--borland-pascal' (but I don't think we should make this the
> > > default).
> > Who are you agreeing with? I hope it is me :-)
> No, Eike who I quoted directly.
> > I actually had to go to some trouble to get this to work correctly
> > in PascalP, because I allowed EOF to appear immediately after the
> > '.', with no eoln. At the same time I wanted to collect source
> > lines for a listing.
> Why don't you just read it as a text file (provided PascalP was
> written in Pascal)? According to the standard, a text file in Pascal
> consists of lines, so there is always an EOLn before EOF (whether or
> not the external file contains a newline at the end).
> Obviously, GPC (written in C) doesn't do this, either. It just
> processes the input character-wise and counts the newlines (for
> messages) and outputs it character-wise (with `--debug-source').
> > This characteristic is convenient for appending rambling notes
> > after the final "end." without worrying about forming proper
> > comments.
> The question is not whether it's convenient, but whether it's
> allowed by the standards. Do you have any reference where they allow
> > BTW I just ran across a fascinating essay at:
> > <http://www.epemag.com/zuse/forword.htm>
> > which might especially interest you.
> Gives me a 404.
> Frank Heckenbach, frank at g-n-u.de, http://fjf.gnu.de/, 7977168E
> GPC To-Do list, latest features, fixed bugs:
More information about the Gpc