From: notes@CSvax:Pucc-H:pur-phy.UUCP
Subject: Re: Modula-2 anyone? - (nf)
Date: Mon, 12-Sep-83 16:00:55 EDT [thread overview]
Date: Mon Sep 12 16:00:55 1983
Message-ID: <919@pur-phy.UUCP> (raw)
#R:orstcs:22200001:pur-phy:16100001:000:513
pur-phy!hal Sep 12 12:03:00 1983
net.lang.mod2 ???
I'm all for it. I am implementing a compiler for the 68000 and there
are several places in the Report that I feel are ambiguous. I'd like to
discuss it with other people interested in Modula-2. I have one strong
disagreement (BITSET as a standard type) with the language definition but
other than that I absolutely love the language. I describe Modula-2 as
90% of Ada with 10% of the complexity (that should start a few flames).
Hal Chambers
Purdue University
(...!pur-ee!pur-phy!hal)
next reply other threads:[~1983-09-12 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1983-09-12 20:00 notes [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1983-09-15 19:20 Modula-2, anyone? - (nf) Scott Herzinger
1983-09-09 7:49 Modula-2 " nathan
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox