From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pur-phy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax:Pucc-H:pur-phy!notes
From: notes@CSvax:Pucc-H:pur-phy.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Modula-2 anyone? - (nf)
Message-ID: <919@pur-phy.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Sep-83 16:00:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.919
Posted: Mon Sep 12 16:00:55 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Sep-83 17:29:51 EDT
Sender: notes@pur-phy.UUCP
Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept., W. Lafayette, IN
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

#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)