[M3devel] Is CM3 Modula-3 dynamic binding done at RT being formalized?

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi all:
If it isn't it must be worked out I offer myself to do that but anyway, if folks don't dare to comment on that ... but will do my best possible effort to have such thing in a proposal fashion for the public, as nobody seemed very interested in the topic as for now.
In other things I want to talk also given that Obliq has the best "testbed" for the current times, an own calculus, and own Cloud VM implementation, and lots of research in ambients, languages and platforms, just to believe is incredible If I may say so. I spoke recently by email with DR Luca Cardelli, he told me it could be good for the language to have some rework and make it free to see what happens next, I believe that we could really make the contra-revolution of this times, with Modula-3 and its derivatives as for example Obliq. Or better to say, and re-re-evolution, that is the next one.

Thanks in advance


--- El jue, 15/9/11, Daniel Alejandro Benavides D. <dabenavidesd at yahoo.es> escribió:

> De: Daniel Alejandro Benavides D. <dabenavidesd at yahoo.es>
> Asunto: [M3devel] Is CM3 Modula-3 dynamic binding done at RT being formalized?
> Para: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Fecha: jueves, 15 de septiembre, 2011 22:46
> Hi all:
> I have read the addition to the Modula-3 CM· system was
> done by effect of CM-JVM dynamic linking and loading, has
> this facility being formalized (i.e is part of the current
> language definition, why it hasn't someone has asked that
> before but no clues been actually).
> Somehow one of the open problems on Larch project at DEC
> was the creation of sub-sorting facility (<:) simplifying
> the Modula-3 type system, I would some kind of different
> symbol for that operator (perhaps [:  or say '(:' ) but
> Horning proposes to deal with it syntactically with it so
> more research would be needed (I don't know why he can say
> that, I guess is because is supposed to simplify the type
> system, which could be good of course, but I don't know
> whether '(:' could mess the syntax of the LM3 language ):
> http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/larch/pub/wadt11-slides.ps
> 
> By the way we should recover the LM3 semantics manual
> because that way we can show the model intended to be in the
> ESC way and railroad diagrams, etc, kind of more formal, I
> believe they did quite an amount of work on the Larch
> project but as ESC began got somehow abandoned after that,
> but still quite advanced work for the time.
> 
> More interestingly there are some efforts to revive this
> old dilemma of Computation and deduction chicken and egg
> problem, that specification languages are Turing-computable
> or not, etc. I believe they are in DEC cases they are
> because of they experience with DECspec, etc and others as
> well are the SPEC language by Lampson, which has a lot
> attention right now out there (i guess there is some
> prototype tools for handling it but nothing of verification
> that I know).
> 
> Also this way we can offer some more knowledge to the
> readers interested in DEC's initiatives and its roots and
> effects in the time being passed, after they became
> important (like ten years or more later just as they planed
> things being in current use, but as unfinished they due
> unsatisfiability discarded before its time). Anyway CM3
> source still has still lm3 interface code files I believe
> one could ask why are there those files if they weren't
> used, which I can think they were but because of state of
> the art tools they were not released to the big public now
> but are there still:
> http://modula3.elegosoft.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/cm3/m3-libs/m3core/src/thread/Common/larch/#dirlist
> http://modula3.elegosoft.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/cm3/m3-libs/m3core/src/thread/Common/set.lsl
> 
> Thanks in advance
>