chris at cfbsoftware.com
Fri Oct 12 15:45:58 CEST 2018
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oberon [mailto:oberon-bounces at lists.inf.ethz.ch] On Behalf Of
> Skulski, Wojciech
> Sent: Friday, 12 October 2018 12:49 PM
> To: ETH Oberon and related systems
> Subject: [Oberon] LDPSR
> Looking at the official definition of MODULE SYSTEM in the language
> Report taken from the same website, the description of LDPSR is
> 1. Is there any chance that the documentation will be maintained such
> that the Language Report is consistent with the other papers, as well
> as with the evolution of the System?
For this particular example I would hope not. The language report should
only change when the language itself changes not when one or other
implementations of the language change. The Oberon Language Report
specifically says (my asterisks):
"The subsequent definitions are *generally* applicable. However, individual
implementations *may include* in their module SYSTEM *additional*
definitions that are particular to the specific, underlying computer."
Perhaps it should add "Refer to your implementation-specific documentation
For example the Astrobe implementation of Oberon does not have SYSTEM.LDPSR.
However, it does have SYSTEM.BFI, SYSTEM.UBFX, SYSTEM.REV, SYSTEM.RBIT etc.
etc. All of which are NOT applicable to RISC5. The last thing we need is
several different versions of the Language Report in circulation.
The proper place for descriptions of these additional features is in
implementation-specific documentation e.g. the RISC5 papers and the separate
documents we supply for each of the different implementations of Astrobe for
Cortex-M3 / M4 and M7:
More information about the Oberon