[M3devel] [M3commit] CVS Update: cm3

[Tony Hosking]

I generally agree, but in this case we are probably dependent on a  
large number of C header files on the various different targets.   
Jay's efforts have reduced the burned of cloning C header files into  
Modula-3 interfaces.  It is a fine line to tread though, and I think  
it is important to resist gratuitous rewrites into C code.  In this  
case, I haven't had the chance to look at the code for Term.m3 and  
understand what is being attempted.


On 21 Jul 2009, at 17:53, Randy Coleburn wrote:

> Jay:
>
> I guess this topic is just a pet peeve of mine.
>  We tout Modula-3 as a systems programming language and that it has  
> all these great features that make it superior to languages that  
> lack them, yet when we "don't practice what we preach" and use  
> another language it weakens the argument.
>
> IMO, using C instead of Modula-3 is kind of like saying that we love  
> baseball, but we have to use soccer to play baseball the right way.   
> It just doesn't add up.
>
> I think we should always use Modula-3 in developing and enhancing  
> the CM3 system.
>
> I must also disagree with you and state that for a TRUE Modula-3  
> fan, C is indeed "nasty."
>
> All that said, I haven't looked at the code in question here.  I  
> simply commented on the idea of replacing M3 code with C code.
>
> Regards,
> Randy
>
> >>> <jay.krell at cornell.edu> 7/21/2009 1:53 PM >>>
> I might have left it able to be called safe. Honestly I look more for
> human verifiable safety and correctness and it lacked those before and
> now does not. If that coincides with machine verifable safety, great.
> Either way you need C here for correctness and safety. It isn't
> 'nasty'. Not using C here would be nasty. I think you have it
> backwards. UNLESS the sizes and constants here are well known but
> reading docs quickly I didn't see that. Unsafe does not imply not
> portable.
>
>   - Jay (phone)
>
> On Jul 21, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Tony Hosking <hosking at cs.purdue.edu>  
> wrote:
>
> > Hear, hear!
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:17 AM, "Randy Coleburn"
> > <rcoleburn at scires.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Granted, I see that Term.m3 is an UNSAFE module, so that by
> >> definition means it is not portable.
> >> Why though do we want to replace it by nasty C code where non-
> >> portable stuff can be easily hidden?  This is Modula-3.  Why not
> >> fix the Modula-3 code so that it doesn't have to be UNSAFE?  (My 2
> >> cents.)
> >> --Randy
> >>
> >> >>> Jay Krell <jkrell at elego.de> 7/21/2009 11:55 AM >>>
> >> CVSROOT:/usr/cvs
> >> Changes by:jkrell at birch.09/07/21 11:55:36
> >>
> >> Added files:
> >> cm3/caltech-parser/term/src/: TermC.c
> >>
> >> Log message:
> >> initial copy of dangerous non portable Term.m3 to rewrite portably
> >> and have it do nothing silently on Win32 which should suffice, or
> >> if not, can probably be done better, specifically the MakeRaw
> >> function
> >>
> >>
> >
>