Meeting the Scope and Purpose of P754

[Michel Hack (1-914-784-7648) <hack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

With respect of attaching "reproducibility" to a block:
> This is not a reproducibility issue, but a broader one within the standard:
> various kinds of modes are intended to be attached to "blocks" as defined
> in 2.2.4 (I would have preferred "region of program text" which has less
> pre-existing baggage than "block").

I agree that this issue is more general, and contributes to my unease
about the "language" direction of the draft.  There are many kinds of
languages; the standard has tried valiantly at least to accomodate the
distinction between interpreted and compiled languages, but even there
a nitpicking approach can still find flaws.  I'm of the opinion that
the standard has to be read with a modicum of common sense, so I don't
object quite as frequently as Dave James for example, though I understand
Dave's point of view.  So I assume that "block" would be interpreted in a
manner appropriate to a language if it applies at all, and if it does not
apply, one can always consider the entire program to be a "block" even when
the entire program may not exist yet when it starts (think Forth or Lisp).

For specific properties like reproducibility, the issue of static vs
dynamic scope may have essential implementability implications, which
is why I brought it up.

> However, widenTo has been in the draft for a long time, mostly
> independent of the current reproducibility issues.

I don't object to widenTo -- it is an important concept in some
languages, like C for example.  What I object to is making the
control mandatory in languages (like PL/I) where it may do more
harm than good.  So standardising the concept for those cases
where it would be used is still a good idea.

Michel.
Sent: 2007-07-27 23:59:11 UTC