ANNOUNCE: GNU Pascal 2.0 (22.214.171.124)
JanJaap van der Heijden
J.J.vanderHeijden at student.utwente.nl
Wed Dec 18 10:00:47 CET 1996
>Return-Path: <samiam at pacbell.net>
>Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 22:30:13 -0800 (PST)
>To: J.J.vanderHeijden at student.utwente.nl
>Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: GNU Pascal 2.0 (126.96.36.199)
>From: samiam at pacbell.net (Scott A. Moore)
>X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.2
>Keywords: GNU,Pascal,Free Software,FreeWare
>References: <gnusenet32b12cac.763542 at news.student.utwente.nl>
>In article <gnusenet32b12cac.763542 at news.student.utwente.nl>,
J.J.vanderHeijden at student.utwente.nl says...
>> This is the announcement of version 2.0 of
>> GNU Pascal
>> corresponding to GCC version 188.8.131.52.
>> What is GNU Pascal?
>> GNU Pascal is, as the name says, the Pascal compiler from the
>> GNU compiler family. This means:
>> - 32 bit compiler, no limits, highly optimizing,
>> - runs on all operating systems supported by GCC (including DOS,
>> Win95/NT, OS/2, Linux, FreeBSD, many other Unix dialects),
>> - Free Software according to the GNU General Public License,
>> - compatible to other GNU languages and tools such as
>> GNU C and the GNU debugger.
>> The compiler integrates the following language standards:
>> - ISO 7185 Standard Pascal,
>> - ISO 10206 Extended Pascal (90% implemented),
>> - Borland Pascal (80% compatible).
>I know this is going to start something of a fight, but when I last checked,
>this compiler did not in fact comply with ISO 7185 (the original Pascal
>standard). I know that you folks put a lot of free time into this compiler,
>and that is appreciated, but I also believe that it hurts everyone and
>undermines the standard to falsely claim compliance with it.
>To me, the difficulty lies in the fact that there are no real compliance
>tests for standard Pascal. The BSO had a PAID one, but the problem with that
>is that to validate a compiler maker's claim to obey that standard required
>a >$1000 investment, hardly within the means of the average user. The only
>other way such a test can work is if the originators would have taken
>issue with false claims of compliance. The BSO didn't do that, and to this
>day at least one "standard" pascal is shipped and advertised falsely
>claiming to have passed it (Microway).
>For the obvious question, yes, I have pointed out the standards compliance
>difficulties to the originators of GCC Pascal, and offered to spend my
>time free of charge to help find compliance problems with the compiler
>(and I still do).
>What say we get this compiler the final few steps to meet the minimum
>standard, or stop claiming that it is standard. Obviously I prefer the
>former. Otherwise, when the above statement (IMHO false) is published,
>I feel it is my duty to provide equally public opposition.
"Nothing shocks me, I'm a scientist", Indiana Jones
More information about the Gpc