Pascal-Standard Question

[da Silva, Joe]

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 6.7.6.5 indicates that "When
eoln(f) is activated, it shall be an error if ... eof(f) is true".

Joe.

> -----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
> it?
> 
> > 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
> 
> -- 
> Frank Heckenbach, frank at g-n-u.de, http://fjf.gnu.de/, 7977168E
> GPC To-Do list, latest features, fixed bugs:
> http://www.gnu-pascal.de/todo.html