From 1ed85021f147ef82f70ca863dbc06a519a2370d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jedidiah Barber Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2021 20:27:03 +1200 Subject: Changed /cgit to /cgi-bin, revised spacing --- project/templates/adapad.html | 22 +- project/templates/base.html | 2 +- project/templates/base_math.html | 2 +- project/templates/fltkada.html | 15 +- project/templates/grasp.html | 8 +- project/templates/packrat.html | 5 +- project/templates/sokoban.html | 2 +- project/templates/steelman.html | 1409 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------ project/templates/stvcount.html | 8 +- project/templates/sunset.html | 13 +- project/templates/thue2a.html | 2 +- 11 files changed, 801 insertions(+), 687 deletions(-) (limited to 'project/templates') diff --git a/project/templates/adapad.html b/project/templates/adapad.html index 6e0501f..2592e1b 100644 --- a/project/templates/adapad.html +++ b/project/templates/adapad.html @@ -11,24 +11,24 @@

Adapad

-

Git repository: Link

+

Git repository: Link

8/5/2017
-

The Ada binding for FLTK has now been moved to its own repository. -Installing it is required to build and use Adapad, naturally. Both repositories are set up to use -the GNAT Project Manager build tools to handle all that, with any further specific details in each -project's readme.

+

The Ada binding for FLTK has now been moved to its own +repository. Installing it is required to build and use Adapad, naturally. Both repositories are +set up to use the GNAT Project Manager build tools to handle all that, with any further specific +details in each project's readme.

2/1/2017
-

I have a soft spot for the Ada programming language. -Strong typing, built in concurrency, readable syntax, systems support, real-time support, a general -culture of correctness and emphasising reliability... what's not to like? I also have a bit of an -interest in FLTK, being one of the more -prominent tiny graphics toolkits around. Adapad is a notepad clone born as a side project from -efforts to create an Ada binding for FLTK.

+

I have a soft spot for the Ada programming +language. Strong typing, built in concurrency, readable syntax, systems support, real-time +support, a general culture of correctness and emphasising reliability... what's not to like? I also +have a bit of an interest in FLTK, +being one of the more prominent tiny graphics toolkits around. Adapad is a notepad clone born as a +side project from efforts to create an Ada binding for FLTK.

Index
  • About
  • Tags
    • -
  • Git
    • +
  • Git
  • Links
    • diff --git a/project/templates/base_math.html b/project/templates/base_math.html index a0fff19..aa6c7fa 100644 --- a/project/templates/base_math.html +++ b/project/templates/base_math.html @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
  • Index
  • About
  • Tags
    • -
  • Git
    • +
  • Git
  • Links
    • diff --git a/project/templates/fltkada.html b/project/templates/fltkada.html index 99f4749..2d7185b 100644 --- a/project/templates/fltkada.html +++ b/project/templates/fltkada.html @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@

    FLTK Ada Binding

    -

    Git repository: Link
    +

    Git repository: Link
    Estimated status: 80% complete

    @@ -43,12 +43,13 @@ updated binding.

    25/6/2017
    -

    FLTK, or by its full name the Fast Light Toolkit, -is a graphical widget toolkit noteworthy for being so lightweight that it is commonly statically -linked. Projects that make use of it include the Dillo web browser, the FLWM X window manager, -and the Equinox Desktop Environment. -There are bindings for it in several languages, including Python, Perl and Ruby, but not Ada. Until -now!

    +

    FLTK, or by its full name the Fast Light Toolkit +, is a graphical widget toolkit noteworthy for being so lightweight that it is commonly +statically linked. Projects that make use of it include the Dillo web browser, the +FLWM X window manager, and the +Equinox Desktop Environment. There are bindings for it in several languages, including Python, +Perl and Ruby, but not Ada. Until now!

    This is a spinoff from Adapad, and so despite not yet being complete it can be at least guaranteed to be enough to write a text editor. It's a thick, loosely coupled binding, accomplished diff --git a/project/templates/grasp.html b/project/templates/grasp.html index 7eddc3c..03a328d 100644 --- a/project/templates/grasp.html +++ b/project/templates/grasp.html @@ -11,13 +11,13 @@

    Grasp Interpreter

    -

    Git repository: Link

    +

    Git repository: Link

    1/1/2017
    -

    Like Lisp, the esoteric programming language -Grasp is a homoiconic language that exclusively uses a single datatype. Except instead of lists, -it uses directed graphs.

    +

    Like Lisp, the esoteric programming language Grasp is a homoiconic language that exclusively uses a single datatype. Except +instead of lists, it uses directed graphs.

    A Grasp program is initialised with instruction pointers to those nodes in the graph that have a "name" edge to a node with the value "grasp:main". The nodes at each instruction pointer are diff --git a/project/templates/packrat.html b/project/templates/packrat.html index 221b2cc..321b71c 100644 --- a/project/templates/packrat.html +++ b/project/templates/packrat.html @@ -12,8 +12,9 @@

    Packrat Parser Combinator Library

    -

    Git repository: Link
    -Paper this was based on: Link

    +

    Git repository: Link
    +Paper this was based on: Link

    2/2/2021
    diff --git a/project/templates/sokoban.html b/project/templates/sokoban.html index bf676d1..d5bcb63 100644 --- a/project/templates/sokoban.html +++ b/project/templates/sokoban.html @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@

    Sokoban Clone

    -

    Git repository: Link

    +

    Git repository: Link

    8/8/2017
    diff --git a/project/templates/steelman.html b/project/templates/steelman.html index 6fb543b..a62b4ba 100644 --- a/project/templates/steelman.html +++ b/project/templates/steelman.html @@ -22,40 +22,47 @@
    Overview
    -

    From 1975 to 1978 the United States Department of Defense sought to establish a set of requirements for a single -high level programming language that would also be appropriate for use in Defense embedded systems. After successively -more refined versions of the requirements from Strawman through to Ironman, this effort culminated in Steelman. The Ada -programming language, possibly the gold standard language for writing safe and secure software, was designed to comply -with Steelman.

    - -

    In 1996 David A. Wheeler wrote a paper -that compared Ada, C, C++, and Java against the Steelman. This served to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of -those languages, areas that could be improved, and a scant few requirement points that perhaps aren't even applicable -anymore. Since then several more programming languages capable of systems work have been created, so it's time for an -update. More datapoints! Hence, this article will conduct a similar comparison, instead using D, Parasail, Pascal, and Rust.

    +

    From 1975 to 1978 the United States Department of Defense sought to establish a set of +requirements for a single high level programming language that would also be appropriate for use in +Defense embedded systems. After successively more refined versions of the requirements from Strawman +through to Ironman, this effort culminated in Steelman. The Ada programming language, possibly the +gold standard language for writing safe and secure software, was designed to comply with Steelman. +

    + +

    In 1996 David A. Wheeler wrote a paper that compared Ada, C, C++, and Java against the Steelman. This +served to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of those languages, areas that could be improved, +and a scant few requirement points that perhaps aren't even applicable anymore. Since then several +more programming languages capable of systems work have been created, so it's time for an update. +More datapoints! Hence, this article will conduct a similar comparison, instead using D, Parasail, +Pascal, and Rust.

    The Languages
    -

    D was created originally as a reworking of C++ in 2000-2001. It -serves to represent a progression of the C language family, adding features including contracts, optional garbage -collection, and a standard threading model.

    - -

    Parasail is a research language -created in 2009 by AdaCore, the main vendor of Ada compiler tooling today. The language is designed with implicit -parallelism throughout, simplifying and adding static checking -to eliminate as many sources of errors as possible. It represents a possible future direction for Ada derived languages.

    - -

    Pascal, like C, predates -the Steelman requirements and so they cannot have had any influence at all on the language. It was designed for formal -specification and teaching algorithms. -Later dialects were used to develop several high profile software projects, including Skype, Photoshop, and -the original Mac OS. It is useful to consider as a precusor of Ada, sharing many points of functionality and style.

    - -

    Rust is the newest language here, created in 2010. It -is an odd mix of C and ML influence, placing more emphasis on the functional paradigm than other systems languages. -Its main claim to fame is adding another method of heap memory safety via -affine typing.

    +

    D was created originally as a reworking of C++ +in 2000-2001. It serves to represent a progression of the C language family, adding features +including contracts, optional garbage collection, and a standard threading model.

    + +

    Parasail is a +research language created in 2009 by AdaCore, the main vendor of Ada compiler tooling today. The +language is designed with implicit parallelism throughout, simplifying and adding static checking to eliminate as many sources of errors +as possible. It represents a possible future direction for Ada derived languages.

    + +

    Pascal +, like C, predates the Steelman requirements and so they cannot have had any influence at all on +the language. It was designed for formal specification and +teaching +algorithms. Later dialects were used to develop several high profile software projects, +including Skype, Photoshop, and the original Mac OS. It is useful to consider as a precusor of Ada, +sharing many points of functionality and style.

    + +

    Rust is the newest language here, +created in 2010. It is an odd mix of C and ML influence, placing more emphasis on the functional +paradigm than other systems languages. Its main claim to fame is adding another method of heap +memory safety via affine typing.

    @@ -100,43 +107,50 @@ Its main claim to fame is adding another method of heap memory safety via
    -

    * Pascal does not have an official logo, so a picture of Blaise Pascal, -in whose honour the language is named, will have to do.

    +

    * Pascal does not have an official logo, so a picture of +Blaise Pascal, in whose +honour the language is named, will have to do.

    Rules for Comparison

    The rule used for this article is that a language provides a feature if:

      -
    1. that feature is defined in the documents widely regarded as the language's defining document(s), or
      2. -
    2. that feature is widely implemented by compilers typically used for that language with essentially the same semantics.
      3. +
    3. that feature is defined in the documents widely regarded as the language's defining + document(s), or
      4. +
    4. that feature is widely implemented by compilers typically used for that language with + essentially the same semantics.
    -

    Note the bolded difference from the rules in Wheeler's paper. This is so later dialects of Pascal can be considered, -rather than strictly adhering to the ISO standard. The other three languages are unaffected by this change. Aside from -that, effort has been made to keep the evaluation as similar as practical to the previous work.

    +

    Note the bolded difference from the rules in Wheeler's paper. This is so later dialects of Pascal +can be considered, rather than strictly adhering to the ISO standard. The other three languages are +unaffected by this change. Aside from that, effort has been made to keep the evaluation as similar +as practical to the previous work.

    The defining documents used for each of these languages are as follows:

    Results and Conclusions
    -

    The appendix lists the Steelman requirements and how well each language supports them. The following table shows a -summary:

    +

    The appendix lists the Steelman requirements and how well each language supports them. The +following table shows a summary:

    @@ -181,47 +195,57 @@ summary:

    -

    Note that these raw numbers should not be taken at face value. They are a summary of how well the overall requirements are -met, no more, no less. Attention should be directed towards specific requirements to determine the strengths and weaknesses -of each language and the suitability for a particular purpose. Furthermore, some features are not covered by Steelman at all, -such as support for functional programming or object oriented programming.

    +

    Note that these raw numbers should not be taken at face value. They are a summary of how well the +overall requirements are met, no more, no less. Attention should be directed towards specific +requirements to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each language and the suitability for a +particular purpose. Furthermore, some features are not covered by Steelman at all, such as support +for functional programming or object oriented programming.

    The following are high level comments on these programming languages and how they relate:

    Appendix: Table Comparing the Languages to Steelman
    -

    As in Wheeler's paper, this table shows each Steelman requirement on the left and then how well each of the four languages -considered meet that requirement on the right. Some explanatory notes are included for a few of the requirements.

    +

    As in Wheeler's paper, this table shows each Steelman requirement on the left and then how well +each of the four languages considered meet that requirement on the right. Some explanatory notes are +included for a few of the requirements.

    -

    Note that due to the standardisation issues each of these languages has, a (fortunately quite low) number of these -turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader discretion is advised.

    +

    Note that due to the standardisation issues each of these languages has, a (fortunately quite +low) number of these turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless +reader discretion is advised.

    @@ -278,11 +302,12 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader 1C. Maintainability. The language should promote ease of program maintenance. It - should emphasize program readability (i.e., clarity, understandability, and modifiability - of programs). The language should encourage user documentation of programs. It shall - require explicit specification of programmer decisions and shall provide defaults only - for instances where the default is stated in the language definition, is always meaningful, - reflects the most frequent usage in programs, and may be explicitly overridden. + should emphasize program readability (i.e., clarity, understandability, and + modifiability of programs). The language should encourage user documentation of + programs. It shall require explicit specification of programmer decisions and shall + provide defaults only for instances where the default is stated in the language + definition, is always meaningful, reflects the most frequent usage in programs, and may + be explicitly overridden. partial? yes? @@ -291,23 +316,23 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Parasail was designed with readability in mind, although it suffers slightly from having several - different ways to do something. Pascal was designed for teaching structured programming. D inherits - a lot of the syntactical traps of C-family languages. Rust has exceedingly terse and difficult to - read syntax. + Parasail was designed with readability in mind, although it suffers slightly from having + several different ways to do something. Pascal was designed for teaching structured + programming. D inherits a lot of the syntactical traps of C-family languages. Rust has + exceedingly terse and difficult to read syntax. - 1D. Efficiency. The language design should aid the production of efficient object programs. - Constructs that have unexpectedly expensive implementations should be easily recognizable - by translators and by users. Features should be chosen to have a simple and efficient - implementation in many object machines, to avoid execution costs for available generality - where it is not needed, to maximize the number of safe optimizations available to - translators, and to ensure that unused and constant portions of programs will not add to - execution costs. Execution time support packages of the language shall not be included in - object code unless they are called. + 1D. Efficiency. The language design should aid the production of efficient object + programs. Constructs that have unexpectedly expensive implementations should be easily + recognizable by translators and by users. Features should be chosen to have a simple and + efficient implementation in many object machines, to avoid execution costs for available + generality where it is not needed, to maximize the number of safe optimizations + available to translators, and to ensure that unused and constant portions of programs + will not add to execution costs. Execution time support packages of the language shall + not be included in object code unless they are called. partial? yes? @@ -316,20 +341,20 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D incorporates garbage collection to some extent. Parasail is designed to allow as much implicit - parallelism as possible. + D incorporates garbage collection to some extent. Parasail is designed to allow as much + implicit parallelism as possible. 1E. Simplicity. The language should not contain unnecessary complexity. It should have a - consistent semantic structure that minimizes the number of underlying concepts. It should - be as small as possible consistent with the needs of the intended applications. It should - have few special cases and should be composed from features that are individually simple - in their semantics. The language should have uniform syntactic conventions and should not - provide several notations for the same concept. No arbitrary restriction should be imposed - on a language feature. + consistent semantic structure that minimizes the number of underlying concepts. It + should be as small as possible consistent with the needs of the intended applications. + It should have few special cases and should be composed from features that are + individually simple in their semantics. The language should have uniform syntactic + conventions and should not provide several notations for the same concept. No arbitrary + restriction should be imposed on a language feature. yes? mostly @@ -344,12 +369,13 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 1F. Implementability. The language shall be composed from features that are understood and - can be implemented. The semantics of each feature should be sufficiently well specified and - understandable that it will be possible to predict its interaction with other features. To - the extent that it does not interfere with other requirements, the language shall facilitate - the production of translators that are easy to implement and are efficient during translation. - There shall be no language restrictions that are not enforceable by translators. + 1F. Implementability. The language shall be composed from features that are understood + and can be implemented. The semantics of each feature should be sufficiently well + specified and understandable that it will be possible to predict its interaction with + other features. To the extent that it does not interfere with other requirements, the + language shall facilitate the production of translators that are easy to implement and + are efficient during translation. There shall be no language restrictions that are not + enforceable by translators. yes yes @@ -364,13 +390,14 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 1G. Machine Independence. The design of the language should strive for machine independence. - It shall not dictate the characteristics of object machines or operating systems except to the - extent that such characteristics are implied by the semantics of control structures and built-in - operations. It shall attempt to avoid features whose semantics depend on characteristics of the - object machine or of the object machine operating system. Nevertheless, there shall be a facility - for defining those portions of programs that are dependent on the object machine configuration - and for conditionally compiling programs depending on the actual configuration. + 1G. Machine Independence. The design of the language should strive for machine + independence. It shall not dictate the characteristics of object machines or operating + systems except to the extent that such characteristics are implied by the semantics of + control structures and built-in operations. It shall attempt to avoid features whose + semantics depend on characteristics of the object machine or of the object machine + operating system. Nevertheless, there shall be a facility for defining those portions of + programs that are dependent on the object machine configuration and for conditionally + compiling programs depending on the actual configuration. yes yes @@ -384,9 +411,9 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 1H. Complete Definition. The language shall be completely and unambiguously defined. To the extent - that a formal definition assists in achieving the above goals (i.e., all of section 1), the - language shall be formally defined. + 1H. Complete Definition. The language shall be completely and unambiguously defined. To + the extent that a formal definition assists in achieving the above goals (i.e., all of + section 1), the language shall be formally defined. yes yes @@ -395,20 +422,22 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - While Pascal is the only one of these languages with an ISO standard, most Pascal programming is done - with more recent extended dialects. Rust reference material does not completely describe the language. + While Pascal is the only one of these languages with an ISO standard, most Pascal + programming is done with more recent extended dialects. Rust reference material does not + completely describe the language. - 2A. Character Set. The full set of character graphics that may be used in source programs shall be - given in the language definition. Every source program shall also have a representation that uses - only the following 55 character subset of the ASCII graphics: %&'()*+,-./:;<=>? 0123456789 - ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ_ Each additional graphic (i.e., one in the full set but not in the 55 - character set) may be replaced by a sequence of (one or more) characters from the 55 character set - without altering the semantics of the program. The replacement sequence shall be specified in the - language definition. + 2A. Character Set. The full set of character graphics that may be used in source + programs shall be given in the language definition. Every source program shall also have + a representation that uses only the following 55 character subset of the ASCII graphics: + %&'()*+,-./:;<=>? 0123456789 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ_ Each additional + graphic (i.e., one in the full set but not in the 55 character set) may be replaced by a + sequence of (one or more) characters from the 55 character set without altering the + semantics of the program. The replacement sequence shall be specified in the language + definition. mostly mostly @@ -422,9 +451,9 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 2B. Grammar. The language should have a simple, uniform, and easily parsed grammar and lexical - structure. The language shall have free form syntax and should use familiar notations where such - use does not conflict with other goals. + 2B. Grammar. The language should have a simple, uniform, and easily parsed grammar and + lexical structure. The language shall have free form syntax and should use familiar + notations where such use does not conflict with other goals. partial? yes @@ -433,16 +462,17 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Use of familiar notations is something that Parasail arguably takes too far, see 1E. D inherits some - grammar issues from C/C++. Rust has less borrowing from that source but is still very ad hoc. + Use of familiar notations is something that Parasail arguably takes too far, see 1E. D + inherits some grammar issues from C/C++. Rust has less borrowing from that source but is + still very ad hoc. - 2C. Syntactic Extensions. The user shall not be able to modify the source language syntax. In - particular the user shall not be able to introduce new precedence rules or to define new syntactic - forms. + 2C. Syntactic Extensions. The user shall not be able to modify the source language + syntax. In particular the user shall not be able to introduce new precedence rules or to + define new syntactic forms. yes yes @@ -457,12 +487,13 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 2D. Other Syntactic Issues. Multiple occurrences of a language defined symbol appearing in the same - context shall not have essentially different meanings. Lexical units (i.e., identifiers, reserved - words, single and multicharacter symbols, numeric and string literals, and comments) may not cross - line boundaries of a source program. All key word forms that contain declarations or statements - shall be bracketed (i.e., shall have a closing as well as an opening key word). Programs may not - contain unmatched brackets of any kind. + 2D. Other Syntactic Issues. Multiple occurrences of a language defined symbol appearing + in the same context shall not have essentially different meanings. Lexical units (i.e., + identifiers, reserved words, single and multicharacter symbols, numeric and string + literals, and comments) may not cross line boundaries of a source program. All key word + forms that contain declarations or statements shall be bracketed (i.e., shall have a + closing as well as an opening key word). Programs may not contain unmatched brackets of + any kind. mostly yes @@ -471,17 +502,17 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D, Pascal, and Rust permit multi line comments. D and Rust use opening and closing braces rather - than key words. + D, Pascal, and Rust permit multi line comments. D and Rust use opening and closing + braces rather than key words. - 2E. Mnemonic Identifiers. Mnemonically significant identifiers shall be allowed. There shall be a - break character for use within identifiers. The language and its translators shall not permit - identifiers or reserved words to be abbreviated. (Note that this does not preclude reserved words - that are abbreviations of natural language words.) + 2E. Mnemonic Identifiers. Mnemonically significant identifiers shall be allowed. There + shall be a break character for use within identifiers. The language and its translators + shall not permit identifiers or reserved words to be abbreviated. (Note that this does + not preclude reserved words that are abbreviations of natural language words.) yes yes @@ -495,10 +526,11 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 2F. Reserved Words. The only reserved words shall be those that introduce special syntactic forms - (such as control structures and declarations) or that are otherwise used as delimiters. Words that - may be replaced by identifiers, shall not be reserved (e.g., names of functions, types, constants, - and variables shall not be reserved). All reserved words shall be listed in the language definition. + 2F. Reserved Words. The only reserved words shall be those that introduce special + syntactic forms (such as control structures and declarations) or that are otherwise used + as delimiters. Words that may be replaced by identifiers, shall not be reserved (e.g., + names of functions, types, constants, and variables shall not be reserved). All reserved + words shall be listed in the language definition. yes yes @@ -512,8 +544,8 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 2G. Numeric Literals. There shall be built-in decimal literals. There shall be no implicit truncation - or rounding of integer and fixed point literals. + 2G. Numeric Literals. There shall be built-in decimal literals. There shall be no + implicit truncation or rounding of integer and fixed point literals. mostly yes @@ -522,17 +554,17 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Parasail Univ_Integer and Univ_Real types provide arbitrary precision. Rust provides configurable ways - to treat integer overflow, with the default release mode being wrapping by two's complement. D allows - implicit wrapping of integers. Pascal real types are implementation defined. Only Parasail supports - fixed point types. + Parasail Univ_Integer and Univ_Real types provide arbitrary precision. Rust provides + configurable ways to treat integer overflow, with the default release mode being + wrapping by two's complement. D allows implicit wrapping of integers. Pascal real types + are implementation defined. Only Parasail supports fixed point types. - 2H. String Literals. There shall be a built-in facility for fixed length string literals. String - literals shall be interpreted as one-dimensional character arrays. + 2H. String Literals. There shall be a built-in facility for fixed length string + literals. String literals shall be interpreted as one-dimensional character arrays. yes yes @@ -547,8 +579,8 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 2I. Comments. The language shall permit comments that are introduced by a special (one or two character) - symbol and terminated by the next line boundary of the source program. + 2I. Comments. The language shall permit comments that are introduced by a special (one + or two character) symbol and terminated by the next line boundary of the source program. yes yes @@ -563,8 +595,9 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 3A. Strong Typing. The language shall be strongly typed. The type of each variable, array and record - component, expression, function, and parameter shall be determinable during translation. + 3A. Strong Typing. The language shall be strongly typed. The type of each variable, + array and record component, expression, function, and parameter shall be determinable + during translation. mostly yes @@ -573,18 +606,19 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Some implicit conversion is allowed in D, such as booleans to integral types, one way conversion from - enums to integers, and some automatic promotion of integer types. + Some implicit conversion is allowed in D, such as booleans to integral types, one way + conversion from enums to integers, and some automatic promotion of integer types. - 3B. Type Conversions. The language shall distinguish the concepts of type (specifying data elements with - common properties, including operations), subtype (i.e., a subset of the elements of a type, that is - characterized by further constraints), and representations (i.e., implementation characteristics). There - shall be no implicit conversions between types. Explicit conversion operations shall be automatically - defined between types that are characterized by the same logical properties. + 3B. Type Conversions. The language shall distinguish the concepts of type (specifying + data elements with common properties, including operations), subtype (i.e., a subset of + the elements of a type, that is characterized by further constraints), and + representations (i.e., implementation characteristics). There shall be no implicit + conversions between types. Explicit conversion operations shall be automatically defined + between types that are characterized by the same logical properties. partial? yes @@ -593,19 +627,20 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D, Rust do not have subtypes, although class structures in D can be used with contract programming to - provide the same functionality. D allows implicit promotion of integer types. D, Rust have primitive types - that are tightly coupled to the typical implementation characteristics of computer hardware. + D, Rust do not have subtypes, although class structures in D can be used with contract + programming to provide the same functionality. D allows implicit promotion of integer + types. D, Rust have primitive types that are tightly coupled to the typical + implementation characteristics of computer hardware. - 3C. Type Definitions. It shall be possible to define new data types in programs. A type may be defined - as an enumeration, an array or record type, an indirect type, an existing type, or a subtype of an existing - type. It shall be possible to process type definitions entirely during translation. An identifier may be - associated with each type. No restriction shall be imposed on user defined types unless it is imposed on - all types. + 3C. Type Definitions. It shall be possible to define new data types in programs. A type + may be defined as an enumeration, an array or record type, an indirect type, an existing + type, or a subtype of an existing type. It shall be possible to process type definitions + entirely during translation. An identifier may be associated with each type. No + restriction shall be imposed on user defined types unless it is imposed on all types. mostly yes @@ -614,17 +649,18 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D, Rust do not have subtypes. D however can emulate similar functionality with type invariant contracts - for user defined classes. + D, Rust do not have subtypes. D however can emulate similar functionality with type + invariant contracts for user defined classes. - 3D. Subtype Constraints. The constraints that characterize subtypes shall include range, precision, scale, - index ranges, and user defined constraints. The value of a subtype constraint for a variable may be - specified when the variable is declared. The language should encourage such specifications. [Note that - such specifications can aid the clarity, efficiency, maintainability, and provability of programs.] + 3D. Subtype Constraints. The constraints that characterize subtypes shall include range, + precision, scale, index ranges, and user defined constraints. The value of a subtype + constraint for a variable may be specified when the variable is declared. The language + should encourage such specifications. [Note that such specifications can aid the + clarity, efficiency, maintainability, and provability of programs.] partial yes? @@ -633,16 +669,17 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D does not have subtypes but has similar functionality with class type invariants. Rust doesn't have - subtypes at all. + D does not have subtypes but has similar functionality with class type invariants. Rust + doesn't have subtypes at all. - 3-1A. Numeric Values. The language shall provide distinct numeric types for exact and for approximate - computation. Numeric operations and assignment that would cause the most significant digits of numeric - values to be truncated (e.g., when overflow occurs) shall constitute an exception situation. + 3-1A. Numeric Values. The language shall provide distinct numeric types for exact and + for approximate computation. Numeric operations and assignment that would cause the most + significant digits of numeric values to be truncated (e.g., when overflow occurs) shall + constitute an exception situation. partial? yes @@ -651,19 +688,21 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Numeric overflow does not cause an exception in D, but the language provides standard ways to check for - the situation. Overflow error handling in Pascal is implementation defined. + Numeric overflow does not cause an exception in D, but the language provides standard + ways to check for the situation. Overflow error handling in Pascal is implementation + defined. - 3-1B. Numeric Operations. There shall be built-in operations (i.e., functions) for conversion between - the numeric types. There shall be operations for addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, negation, - absolute value, and exponentiation to integer powers for each numeric type. There shall be built-in - equality (i.e., equal and unequal) and ordering operations (i.e., less than, greater than, less than or - equal, and greater than or equal) between elements of each numeric type. Numeric values shall be equal - if and only if they have exactly the same abstract value. + 3-1B. Numeric Operations. There shall be built-in operations (i.e., functions) for + conversion between the numeric types. There shall be operations for addition, + subtraction, multiplication, division, negation, absolute value, and exponentiation to + integer powers for each numeric type. There shall be built-in equality (i.e., equal and + unequal) and ordering operations (i.e., less than, greater than, less than or equal, and + greater than or equal) between elements of each numeric type. Numeric values shall be + equal if and only if they have exactly the same abstract value. mostly yes @@ -672,18 +711,19 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D uses a library abs() function instead of a built-in operator. Pascal does not have built-in operators - for absolute value or exponentiation. Rust uses library abs() and pow() functions instead of built-in - absolute value and exponentiation operators. + D uses a library abs() function instead of a built-in operator. Pascal does not have + built-in operators for absolute value or exponentiation. Rust uses library abs() and + pow() functions instead of built-in absolute value and exponentiation operators. - 3-1C. Numeric Variables. The range of each numeric variable must be specified in programs and shall be - determined by the time of its allocation. Such specifications shall be interpreted as the minimum range - to be implemented and as the maximum range needed by the application. Explicit conversion operations shall - not be required between numeric ranges. + 3-1C. Numeric Variables. The range of each numeric variable must be specified in + programs and shall be determined by the time of its allocation. Such specifications + shall be interpreted as the minimum range to be implemented and as the maximum range + needed by the application. Explicit conversion operations shall not be required between + numeric ranges. yes yes @@ -692,18 +732,19 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Counting built-in integer types as specifying a range, all these languages do so to some extent. Parasail - is the only one that supports user defined custom ranges. + Counting built-in integer types as specifying a range, all these languages do so to some + extent. Parasail is the only one that supports user defined custom ranges. - 3-1D. Precision. The precision (of the mantissa) of each expression result and variable in approximate - computations must be specified in programs, and shall be determinable during translation. Precision - specifications shall be required for each such variable. Such specifications shall be interpreted as the - minimum accuracy (not significance) to be implemented. Approximate results shall be implicitly rounded to - the implemented precision. Explicit conversions shall not be required between precisions. + 3-1D. Precision. The precision (of the mantissa) of each expression result and variable + in approximate computations must be specified in programs, and shall be determinable + during translation. Precision specifications shall be required for each such variable. + Such specifications shall be interpreted as the minimum accuracy (not significance) to + be implemented. Approximate results shall be implicitly rounded to the implemented + precision. Explicit conversions shall not be required between precisions. mostly yes @@ -712,18 +753,20 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D defines specific precisions for double and float, along with a minimum precision for real. Custom - precisions can be defined for storage only, but all operations happen on doubles/floats/reals. In - Standard Pascal precision of real number types is entirely implementation defined. Rust defines - specific precisions for 32 and 64 bit floats, but no other control over precision. + D defines specific precisions for double and float, along with a minimum precision for + real. Custom precisions can be defined for storage only, but all operations happen on + doubles/floats/reals. In Standard Pascal precision of real number types is entirely + implementation defined. Rust defines specific precisions for 32 and 64 bit floats, but + no other control over precision. - 3-1E. Approximate Arithmetic Implementation. Approximate arithmetic will be implemented using the actual - precisions, radix, and exponent range available in the object machine. There shall be built-in operations - to access the actual precision, radix, and exponent range of the implementation. + 3-1E. Approximate Arithmetic Implementation. Approximate arithmetic will be implemented + using the actual precisions, radix, and exponent range available in the object machine. + There shall be built-in operations to access the actual precision, radix, and exponent + range of the implementation. yes yes? @@ -732,15 +775,17 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - In Standard Pascal the values taken by real number types are entirely implementation defined. In practice, - this usually means implementation using the actual precisions available in the object machine. + In Standard Pascal the values taken by real number types are entirely implementation + defined. In practice, this usually means implementation using the actual precisions + available in the object machine. - 3-1F. Integer and Fixed Point Numbers. Integer and fixed point numbers shall be treated as exact numeric - values. There shall be no implicit truncation or rounding in integer and fixed point computations. + 3-1F. Integer and Fixed Point Numbers. Integer and fixed point numbers shall be treated + as exact numeric values. There shall be no implicit truncation or rounding in integer + and fixed point computations. mostly yes @@ -749,16 +794,17 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D, Pascal, Rust don't support fixed point numbers, and permit implicit wrapping with integer calculations. - Dealing with overflow, wrapping, and other error conditions in Pascal is implementation defined. + D, Pascal, Rust don't support fixed point numbers, and permit implicit wrapping with + integer calculations. Dealing with overflow, wrapping, and other error conditions in + Pascal is implementation defined. - 3-1G. Fixed Point Scale. The scale or step size (i.e., the minimal representable difference between - values) of each fixed point variable must be specified in programs and be determinable during translation. - Scales shall not be restricted to powers of two. + 3-1G. Fixed Point Scale. The scale or step size (i.e., the minimal representable + difference between values) of each fixed point variable must be specified in programs + and be determinable during translation. Scales shall not be restricted to powers of two. no yes @@ -767,16 +813,17 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Of these four languages, inly Parasail supports fixed point types. + Of these four languages, only Parasail supports fixed point types. - 3-1H. Integer and Fixed Point Operations. There shall be integer and fixed point operations for modulo - and integer division and for conversion between values with different scales. All built-in and predefined - operations for exact arithmetic shall apply between arbitrary scales. Additional operations between - arbitrary scales shall be definable within programs. + 3-1H. Integer and Fixed Point Operations. There shall be integer and fixed point + operations for modulo and integer division and for conversion between values with + different scales. All built-in and predefined operations for exact arithmetic shall + apply between arbitrary scales. Additional operations between arbitrary scales shall be + definable within programs. no yes @@ -791,9 +838,10 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 3-2A. Enumeration Type Definitions. There shall be types that are definable in programs by enumeration of - their elements. The elements of an enumeration type may be identifiers or character literals. Each - variable of an enumeration type may be restricted to a contiguous subsequence of the enumeration. + 3-2A. Enumeration Type Definitions. There shall be types that are definable in programs + by enumeration of their elements. The elements of an enumeration type may be identifiers + or character literals. Each variable of an enumeration type may be restricted to a + contiguous subsequence of the enumeration. mostly yes @@ -802,17 +850,18 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D does not permit character literals in an enumeration, nor restriction to a subsequence. Rust enums are - more flexible in content, but still don't support restriction to a subsequence. + D does not permit character literals in an enumeration, nor restriction to a + subsequence. Rust enums are more flexible in content, but still don't support + restriction to a subsequence. - 3-2B. Operations on Enumeration Types. Equality, inequality, and the ordering operations shall be - automatically defined between elements of each enumeration type. Sufficient additional operations shall be - automatically defined so that the successor, predecessor, the position of any element, and the first and - last element of the type may be computed. + 3-2B. Operations on Enumeration Types. Equality, inequality, and the ordering operations + shall be automatically defined between elements of each enumeration type. Sufficient + additional operations shall be automatically defined so that the successor, predecessor, + the position of any element, and the first and last element of the type may be computed. yes yes? @@ -841,8 +890,9 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 3-2D. Character Types. Character sets shall be definable as enumeration types. Character types may contain - both printable and control characters. The ASCII character set shall be predefined. + 3-2D. Character Types. Character sets shall be definable as enumeration types. Character + types may contain both printable and control characters. The ASCII character set shall + be predefined. yes yes @@ -856,9 +906,10 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 3-3A. Composite Type Definitions. It shall be possible to define types that are Cartesian products of other - types. Composite types shall include arrays (i.e., composite data with indexable components of homogeneous - types) and records (i.e., composite data with labeled components of heterogeneous type). + 3-3A. Composite Type Definitions. It shall be possible to define types that are + Cartesian products of other types. Composite types shall include arrays (i.e., composite + data with indexable components of homogeneous types) and records (i.e., composite data + with labeled components of heterogeneous type). yes yes @@ -873,10 +924,11 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 3-3B. Component Specifications. For elements of composite types, the type of each component (i.e., field) - must be explicitly specified in programs and determinable during translation. Components may be of any type - (including array and record types). Range, precision, and scale specifications shall be required for each - component of appropriate numeric type. + 3-3B. Component Specifications. For elements of composite types, the type of each + component (i.e., field) must be explicitly specified in programs and determinable during + translation. Components may be of any type (including array and record types). Range, + precision, and scale specifications shall be required for each component of appropriate + numeric type. yes yes @@ -885,19 +937,21 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Range, precision, and scale specifications are included in numeric type definitions (with support varying, - see 3-1). + Range, precision, and scale specifications are included in numeric type definitions + (with support varying, see 3-1). - 3-3C. Operations on Composite Types. A value accessing operation shall be automatically defined for each - component of composite data elements. Assignment shall be automatically defined for components that have - alterable values. A constructor operation (i.e., an operation that constructs an element of a type from its - constituent parts) shall be automatically defined for each composite type. An assignable component may be - used anywhere in a program that a variable of the component's type is permitted. There shall be no automatically - defined equivalence operations between values of elements of a composite type. + 3-3C. Operations on Composite Types. A value accessing operation shall be automatically + defined for each component of composite data elements. Assignment shall be automatically + defined for components that have alterable values. A constructor operation (i.e., an + operation that constructs an element of a type from its constituent parts) shall be + automatically defined for each composite type. An assignable component may be used + anywhere in a program that a variable of the component's type is permitted. There shall + be no automatically defined equivalence operations between values of elements of a + composite type. yes yes @@ -911,10 +965,11 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 3-3D. Array Specifications. Arrays that differ in number of dimensions or in component type shall be of - different types. The range of subscript values for each dimension must be specified in programs and may be - determinable at the time of array allocation. The range of each subscript value must be restricted to a - contiguous sequence of integers or to a contiguous sequence from an enumeration type. + 3-3D. Array Specifications. Arrays that differ in number of dimensions or in component + type shall be of different types. The range of subscript values for each dimension must + be specified in programs and may be determinable at the time of array allocation. The + range of each subscript value must be restricted to a contiguous sequence of integers or + to a contiguous sequence from an enumeration type. mostly yes @@ -929,9 +984,10 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 3-3E. Operations on Subarrays. There shall be built-in operations for value access, assignment, and - catenation of contiguous sections of one-dimensional arrays of the same component type. The results of such - access and catenation operations may be used as actual input parameter. + 3-3E. Operations on Subarrays. There shall be built-in operations for value access, + assignment, and catenation of contiguous sections of one-dimensional arrays of the same + component type. The results of such access and catenation operations may be used as + actual input parameter. yes yes? @@ -940,16 +996,18 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Pascal has extremely limited array slicing and does not have a built-in array concatenation operator. Rust - has array slicing facilities, but lacks a built-in array concatenation operator. + Pascal has extremely limited array slicing and does not have a built-in array + concatenation operator. Rust has array slicing facilities, but lacks a built-in array + concatenation operator. - 3-3F. Nonassignable Record Components. It shall be possible to declare constants and (unary) functions that - may be thought of as record components and may be referenced using the same notation as for accessing record - components. Assignment shall not be permitted to such components. + 3-3F. Nonassignable Record Components. It shall be possible to declare constants and + (unary) functions that may be thought of as record components and may be referenced + using the same notation as for accessing record components. Assignment shall not be + permitted to such components. yes yes @@ -958,14 +1016,16 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D classes can include constants and functions. Parasail type inferfaces can include constants and functions. + D classes can include constants and functions. Parasail type inferfaces can include + constants and functions. - 3-3G. Variants. It shall be possible to define types with alternative record structures (i.e., variants). - The structure of each variant shall be determinable during translation. + 3-3G. Variants. It shall be possible to define types with alternative record structures + (i.e., variants). The structure of each variant shall be determinable during + translation. yes yes? @@ -974,16 +1034,16 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D classes can be used to simulate runtime variants. D also has untagged unions. Pascal has variant records. - Rust has tagged unions called "sum types". + D classes can be used to simulate runtime variants. D also has untagged unions. Pascal + has variant records. Rust has tagged unions called "sum types". - 3-3H. Tag Fields. Each variant must have a nonassignable tag field (i.e., a component that can be used to - discriminate among the variants during execution). It shall not be possible to alter a tag field without - replacing the entire variant. + 3-3H. Tag Fields. Each variant must have a nonassignable tag field (i.e., a component + that can be used to discriminate among the variants during execution). It shall not be + possible to alter a tag field without replacing the entire variant. yes yes? @@ -997,12 +1057,13 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 3-3I. Indirect Types. It shall be possible to define types whose elements are indirectly accessed. Elements - of such types may have components of their own type, may have substructure that can be altered during execution, - and may be distinct while having identical component values. Such types shall be distinguishable from other - composite types in their definitions. An element of an indirect type shall remain allocated as long as it can - be referenced by the program. [Note that indirect types require pointers and sometimes heap storage in their - implementation.] + 3-3I. Indirect Types. It shall be possible to define types whose elements are indirectly + accessed. Elements of such types may have components of their own type, may have + substructure that can be altered during execution, and may be distinct while having + identical component values. Such types shall be distinguishable from other composite + types in their definitions. An element of an indirect type shall remain allocated as + long as it can be referenced by the program. [Note that indirect types require pointers + and sometimes heap storage in their implementation.] yes yes @@ -1016,10 +1077,11 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 3-3J. Operations on Indirect Types. Each execution of the constructor operation for an indirect type shall - create a distinct element of the type. An operation that distinguishes between different elements, an - operation that replaces all of the component values of an element without altering the element's identity, - and an operation that produces a new element having the same component values as its argument, shall be + 3-3J. Operations on Indirect Types. Each execution of the constructor operation for an + indirect type shall create a distinct element of the type. An operation that + distinguishes between different elements, an operation that replaces all of the + component values of an element without altering the element's identity, and an operation + that produces a new element having the same component values as its argument, shall be automatically defined for each indirect type. yes @@ -1034,8 +1096,9 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 3-4A. Bit Strings (i.e., Set Types). It shall be possible to define types whose elements are - one-dimensional Boolean arrays represented in maximally packed form (i.e, whose elements are sets). + 3-4A. Bit Strings (i.e., Set Types). It shall be possible to define types whose elements + are one-dimensional Boolean arrays represented in maximally packed form (i.e, whose + elements are sets). yes yes @@ -1044,18 +1107,19 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D provides bit arrays in the standard library in std.bitmanip. It is easy enough to construct bit - strings in Rust using structs or integer types, but the language itself does not provide them as - built in functionality. + D provides bit arrays in the standard library in std.bitmanip. It is easy enough to + construct bit strings in Rust using structs or integer types, but the language itself + does not provide them as built in functionality. - 3-4B. Bit String Operations. Set construction, membership (i.e., subscription), set equivalence - and nonequivalence, and also complement, intersection, union, and symmetric difference (i.e., - component-by-component negation, conjunction, inclusive disjunction, and exclusive disjunction - respectively) operations shall be defined automatically for each set type. + 3-4B. Bit String Operations. Set construction, membership (i.e., subscription), set + equivalence and nonequivalence, and also complement, intersection, union, and symmetric + difference (i.e., component-by-component negation, conjunction, inclusive disjunction, + and exclusive disjunction respectively) operations shall be defined automatically for + each set type. yes yes? @@ -1069,10 +1133,10 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 3-5A. Encapsulated Definitions. It shall be possible to encapsulate definitions. An encapsulation - may contain declarations of anything (including the data elements and operations comprising a type) - that is definable in programs. The language shall permit multiple explicit instantiations of an - encapsulation. + 3-5A. Encapsulated Definitions. It shall be possible to encapsulate definitions. An + encapsulation may contain declarations of anything (including the data elements and + operations comprising a type) that is definable in programs. The language shall permit + multiple explicit instantiations of an encapsulation. yes yes @@ -1087,11 +1151,12 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 3-5B. Effect of Encapsulation. An encapsulation may be used to inhibit external access to - implementation properties of the definition. In particular, it shall be possible to prevent external - reference to any declaration within the encapsulation including automatically defined operations - such as type conversions and equality. Definitions that are made within an encapsulation and are - externally accessible may be renamed before use outside the encapsulation. + 3-5B. Effect of Encapsulation. An encapsulation may be used to inhibit external access + to implementation properties of the definition. In particular, it shall be possible to + prevent external reference to any declaration within the encapsulation including + automatically defined operations such as type conversions and equality. Definitions that + are made within an encapsulation and are externally accessible may be renamed before use + outside the encapsulation. yes yes @@ -1105,9 +1170,9 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 3-5C. Own Variables. Variables declared within an encapsulation, but not within a function, procedure, - or process of the encapsulation, shall remain allocated and retain their values throughout the scope - in which the encapsulation is instantiated. + 3-5C. Own Variables. Variables declared within an encapsulation, but not within a + function, procedure, or process of the encapsulation, shall remain allocated and retain + their values throughout the scope in which the encapsulation is instantiated. yes yes @@ -1121,8 +1186,9 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 4A. Form of Expressions. The parsing of correct expressions shall not depend on the types of their - operands or on whether the types of the operands are built into the language. + 4A. Form of Expressions. The parsing of correct expressions shall not depend on the + types of their operands or on whether the types of the operands are built into the + language. yes yes @@ -1136,10 +1202,10 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 4B. Type of Expressions. It shall be possible to specify the type of any expression explicitly. - The use of such specifications shall be required only where the type of the expression cannot be - uniquely determined during translation from the context of its use (as might be the case with a - literal). + 4B. Type of Expressions. It shall be possible to specify the type of any expression + explicitly. The use of such specifications shall be required only where the type of the + expression cannot be uniquely determined during translation from the context of its use + (as might be the case with a literal). yes yes @@ -1153,13 +1219,14 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 4C. Side Effects. The language shall attempt to minimize side effects in expressions, but shall - not prohibit all side effects. A side effect shall not be allowed if it would alter the value - of a variable that can be accessed at the point of the expression. Side effects shall be limited - to own variables of encapsulations. The language shall permit side effects that are necessary - to instrument functions and to do storage management within functions. The order of side effects - within an expression shall not be guaranteed. [Note that the latter implies that any program - that depends on the order of side effects is erroneous.] + 4C. Side Effects. The language shall attempt to minimize side effects in expressions, + but shall not prohibit all side effects. A side effect shall not be allowed if it would + alter the value of a variable that can be accessed at the point of the expression. Side + effects shall be limited to own variables of encapsulations. The language shall permit + side effects that are necessary to instrument functions and to do storage management + within functions. The order of side effects within an expression shall not be + guaranteed. [Note that the latter implies that any program that depends on the order of + side effects is erroneous.] mostly? yes? @@ -1174,8 +1241,8 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 4D. Allowed Usage. Expressions of a given type shall be allowed wherever both constants and - variables of the type are allowed. + 4D. Allowed Usage. Expressions of a given type shall be allowed wherever both constants + and variables of the type are allowed. yes yes @@ -1189,10 +1256,10 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 4E. Translation Time Expressions. Expressions that can be evaluated during translation shall - be permitted wherever literals of the type are permitted. Translation time expressions that - include only literals and the use of translation time facilities (see 11C) shall be - evaluated during translation. + 4E. Translation Time Expressions. Expressions that can be evaluated during translation + shall be permitted wherever literals of the type are permitted. Translation time + expressions that include only literals and the use of translation time facilities (see + 11C) shall be evaluated during translation. yes yes @@ -1206,9 +1273,10 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 4F. Operator Precedence Levels. The precedence levels (i.e., binding strengths) of all (prefix - and infix) operators shall be specified in the language definition, shall not be alterable by - the user, shall be few in number, and shall not depend on the types of the operands. + 4F. Operator Precedence Levels. The precedence levels (i.e., binding strengths) of all + (prefix and infix) operators shall be specified in the language definition, shall not be + alterable by the user, shall be few in number, and shall not depend on the types of the + operands. mostly yes @@ -1217,19 +1285,20 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Pascal has 5 levels, Parasail has 7, Rust has 13 and D has 15-19 depending on how you count them. - For comparison, Ada has 6. + Pascal has 5 levels, Parasail has 7, Rust has 13 and D has 15-19 depending on how you + count them. For comparison, Ada has 6. - 4G. Effect of Parentheses. If present, explicit parentheses shall dictate the association of - operands with operators. The language shall specify where explicit parentheses are required - and shall attempt to minimize the psychological ambiguity in expressions. [Note that this - might be accomplished by requiring explicit parentheses to resolve the operator-operand - association whenever a nonassociative operator appears to the left of an operator of the same - precedence at the least-binding precedence level of any subexpression.] + 4G. Effect of Parentheses. If present, explicit parentheses shall dictate the + association of operands with operators. The language shall specify where explicit + parentheses are required and shall attempt to minimize the psychological ambiguity in + expressions. [Note that this might be accomplished by requiring explicit parentheses to + resolve the operator-operand association whenever a nonassociative operator appears to + the left of an operator of the same precedence at the least-binding precedence level of + any subexpression.] yes yes @@ -1243,9 +1312,10 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 5A. Declarations of Constants. It shall be possible to declare constants of any type. Such - constants shall include both those whose values-are determined during translation and those - whose value cannot be determined until allocation. Programs may not assign to constants. + 5A. Declarations of Constants. It shall be possible to declare constants of any type. + Such constants shall include both those whose values-are determined during translation + and those whose value cannot be determined until allocation. Programs may not assign to + constants. yes yes @@ -1259,10 +1329,11 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 5B. Declarations of Variables. Each variable must be declared explicitly. Variables may be - of any type. The type of each variable must be specified as part of its declaration and must - be determinable during translation. [Note, "variable" throughout this document refers not - only to simple variables but also to composite variables and to components of arrays and records.] + 5B. Declarations of Variables. Each variable must be declared explicitly. Variables may + be of any type. The type of each variable must be specified as part of its declaration + and must be determinable during translation. [Note, "variable" throughout this document + refers not only to simple variables but also to composite variables and to components of + arrays and records.] mostly yes @@ -1271,18 +1342,19 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D permits "void *" as a type, which is really a pointer to an unknown type and subverts the type system. - Rust does not require the type of each variable to be explicitly specified and will infer types instead. + D permits "void *" as a type, which is really a pointer to an unknown type and subverts + the type system. Rust does not require the type of each variable to be explicitly + specified and will infer types instead. - 5C. Scope of Declarations. Everything (including operators) declared in a program shall have - a scope (i.e., a portion of the program in which it can be referenced). Scopes shall be - determinable during translation. Scopes may be nested (i.e., lexically embedded). A declaration - may be made in any scope. Anything other than a variable shall be accessable within any nested - scope of its definition. + 5C. Scope of Declarations. Everything (including operators) declared in a program shall + have a scope (i.e., a portion of the program in which it can be referenced). Scopes + shall be determinable during translation. Scopes may be nested (i.e., lexically + embedded). A declaration may be made in any scope. Anything other than a variable shall + be accessable within any nested scope of its definition. yes? yes @@ -1296,9 +1368,9 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 5D. Restrictions on Values. Procedures, functions, types, labels, exception situations, and - statements shall not be assignable to variables, be computable as values of expressions, or - be usable as nongeneric parameters to procedures or functions. + 5D. Restrictions on Values. Procedures, functions, types, labels, exception situations, + and statements shall not be assignable to variables, be computable as values of + expressions, or be usable as nongeneric parameters to procedures or functions. no no @@ -1307,7 +1379,8 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D and Pascal allow pointers to functions. Parasail allows lambda expressions. Rust has first class functions. + D and Pascal allow pointers to functions. Parasail allows lambda expressions. Rust has + first class functions. @@ -1322,9 +1395,10 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D defines initial values for all types. Parasail sets initial values of all 'optional' types to null. Rust - does not assign default initial values, but instead requires the programmer to always provide an initial - value. All of these instances are done to support reliability. + D defines initial values for all types. Parasail sets initial values of all 'optional' + types to null. Rust does not assign default initial values, but instead requires the + programmer to always provide an initial value. All of these instances are done to + support reliability. @@ -1345,11 +1419,11 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 5G. Scope of Variables. The language shall distinguish between open scopes (i.e., those that - are automatically included in the scope of more globally declared variables) and closed scopes - (i.e., those in which nonlocal variables must be explicitly Imported). Bodies of functions, - procedures, and processes shall be closed scopes. Bodies of classical control structures shall - be open scopes. + 5G. Scope of Variables. The language shall distinguish between open scopes (i.e., those + that are automatically included in the scope of more globally declared variables) and + closed scopes (i.e., those in which nonlocal variables must be explicitly Imported). + Bodies of functions, procedures, and processes shall be closed scopes. Bodies of + classical control structures shall be open scopes. yes yes @@ -1363,12 +1437,13 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 6A. Basic Control Facility. The (built-in) control mechanisms should be of minimal number and - complexity. Each shall provide a single capability and shall have a distinguishing syntax. - Nesting of control structures shall be allowed. There shall be no control definition facility. - Local scopes shall be allowed within the bodies of control statements. Control structures shall - have only one entry point and shall exit to a single point unless exited via an explicit - transfer of control (where permitted, see 6G), or the raising of an exception (see 10C). + 6A. Basic Control Facility. The (built-in) control mechanisms should be of minimal + number and complexity. Each shall provide a single capability and shall have a + distinguishing syntax. Nesting of control structures shall be allowed. There shall be no + control definition facility. Local scopes shall be allowed within the bodies of control + statements. Control structures shall have only one entry point and shall exit to a + single point unless exited via an explicit transfer of control (where permitted, see + 6G), or the raising of an exception (see 10C). yes yes @@ -1382,10 +1457,10 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 6B. Sequential Control. There shall be a control mechanism for sequencing statements. The - language shall not impose arbitrary restrictions on programming style, such as the choice - between statement terminators and statement separators, unless the restriction makes programming - errors less likely. + 6B. Sequential Control. There shall be a control mechanism for sequencing statements. + The language shall not impose arbitrary restrictions on programming style, such as the + choice between statement terminators and statement separators, unless the restriction + makes programming errors less likely. yes yes @@ -1400,13 +1475,14 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 6C. Conditional Control. There shall be conditional control structures that permit selection - among alternative control paths. The selected path may depend on the value of a Boolean expression, - on a computed choice among labeled alternatives, or on the true condition in a set of conditions. - The language shall define the control action for all values of the discriminating condition - that are not specified by the program. The user may supply a single control path to be used - when no other path is selected. Only the selected branch shall be compiled when the discriminating - condition is a translation time expression. + 6C. Conditional Control. There shall be conditional control structures that permit + selection among alternative control paths. The selected path may depend on the value of + a Boolean expression, on a computed choice among labeled alternatives, or on the true + condition in a set of conditions. The language shall define the control action for all + values of the discriminating condition that are not specified by the program. The user + may supply a single control path to be used when no other path is selected. Only the + selected branch shall be compiled when the discriminating condition is a translation + time expression. yes yes @@ -1420,8 +1496,9 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 6D. Short Circuit Evaluation. There shall be infix control operations for short circuit conjunction - and disjunction of the controlling Boolean expression in conditional and iterative control structures. + 6D. Short Circuit Evaluation. There shall be infix control operations for short circuit + conjunction and disjunction of the controlling Boolean expression in conditional and + iterative control structures. yes yes @@ -1430,16 +1507,18 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Standard Pascal does not provide infix control operations, but both Extended Pascal and Turbo Pascal do. + Standard Pascal does not provide infix control operations, but both Extended Pascal and + Turbo Pascal do. - 6E. Iterative Control. There shall be an iterative control structure. The iterative control may - be exited (without reentry) at an unrestricted number of places. A succession of values from an - enumeration type or the integers may be associated with successive iterations and the value for - the current iteration accessed as a constant throughout the loop body. + 6E. Iterative Control. There shall be an iterative control structure. The iterative + control may be exited (without reentry) at an unrestricted number of places. A + succession of values from an enumeration type or the integers may be associated with + successive iterations and the value for the current iteration accessed as a constant + throughout the loop body. mostly yes @@ -1454,11 +1533,12 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 6G. Explicit Control Transfer. There shall be a mechanism for control transfer (i.e., the go to). - It shall not be possible to transfer out of closed scopes, into narrower scopes, or into control - structures. It shall be possible to transfer out of classical control structures. There shall be - no control transfer mechanisms in the form of switches, designational expressions, label variables, - label parameters, or alter statements. + 6G. Explicit Control Transfer. There shall be a mechanism for control transfer (i.e., + the go to). It shall not be possible to transfer out of closed scopes, into narrower + scopes, or into control structures. It shall be possible to transfer out of classical + control structures. There shall be no control transfer mechanisms in the form of + switches, designational expressions, label variables, label parameters, or alter + statements. yes? partial @@ -1467,18 +1547,19 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Neither Parasail nor Rust support goto. However both support break/continue statements that serve - the same purpose in many cases. + Neither Parasail nor Rust support goto. However both support break/continue statements + that serve the same purpose in many cases. - 7A. Function and Procedure Definitions. Functions (which return values to expressions) and procedures - (which can be called as statements) shall be definable in programs. Functions or procedures that - differ in the number or types of their parameters may be denoted by the same identifier or operator - (i.e., overloading shall be permitted). [Note that redefinition, as opposed to overloading, of an - existing function or procedure is often error prone.] + 7A. Function and Procedure Definitions. Functions (which return values to expressions) + and procedures (which can be called as statements) shall be definable in programs. + Functions or procedures that differ in the number or types of their parameters may be + denoted by the same identifier or operator (i.e., overloading shall be permitted). [Note + that redefinition, as opposed to overloading, of an existing function or procedure is + often error prone.] yes yes @@ -1508,9 +1589,9 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 7C. Scope Rules. A reference to an identifier that is not declared in the most local scope - shall refer to a program element that is lexically global, rather than to one that is global - through the dynamic calling structure. + 7C. Scope Rules. A reference to an identifier that is not declared in the most local + scope shall refer to a program element that is lexically global, rather than to one that + is global through the dynamic calling structure. yes yes @@ -1524,10 +1605,10 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 7D. Function Declarations. The type of the result for each function must be specified in its - declaration and shall be determinable during translation. The results of functions may be of - any type. If a result is of a nonindirect array or record type then the number of its components - must be determinable by the time of function call. + 7D. Function Declarations. The type of the result for each function must be specified in + its declaration and shall be determinable during translation. The results of functions + may be of any type. If a result is of a nonindirect array or record type then the number + of its components must be determinable by the time of function call. mostly mostly @@ -1541,14 +1622,14 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 7F. Formal Parameter Classes. There shall be three classes of formal data parameters: (a) input - parameters, which act as constants that are initialized to the value of corresponding actual - parameters at the time of call, (b) input-output parameters, which enable access and assignment - to the corresponding actual parameters, either throughout execution or only upon call and prior - to any exit, and (c) output parameters, whose values are transferred to the corresponding actual - parameter only at the time of normal exit. In the latter two cases the corresponding actual - parameter shall be determined at time of call and must be a variable or an assignable component - of a composite type. + 7F. Formal Parameter Classes. There shall be three classes of formal data parameters: + (a) input parameters, which act as constants that are initialized to the value of + corresponding actual parameters at the time of call, (b) input-output parameters, which + enable access and assignment to the corresponding actual parameters, either throughout + execution or only upon call and prior to any exit, and (c) output parameters, whose + values are transferred to the corresponding actual parameter only at the time of normal + exit. In the latter two cases the corresponding actual parameter shall be determined at + time of call and must be a variable or an assignable component of a composite type. partial yes @@ -1557,18 +1638,19 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D, Pascal and Rust do not identify in, in-out and out parameters. D, Pascal and Rust can support - in-only parameters. + D, Pascal and Rust do not identify in, in-out and out parameters. D, Pascal and Rust can + support in-only parameters. - 7G. Parameter Specifications. The type of each formal parameter must be explicitly specified in - programs and shall be determinable during translation. Parameters may be of any type. The - language shall not require user specification of subtype constraints for formal parameters. If - such constraints are permitted they shall be interpreted as assertions and not as additional - overloading. Corresponding formal and actual parameters must be of the same type. + 7G. Parameter Specifications. The type of each formal parameter must be explicitly + specified in programs and shall be determinable during translation. Parameters may be of + any type. The language shall not require user specification of subtype constraints for + formal parameters. If such constraints are permitted they shall be interpreted as + assertions and not as additional overloading. Corresponding formal and actual parameters + must be of the same type. yes? yes @@ -1582,11 +1664,11 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 7H. Formal Array Parameters. The number of dimensions for formal array parameters must be - specified in programs and shall be determinable during translation. Determination of the - subscript range for formal array parameters may be delayed until invocation and may vary from - call to call. Subscript ranges shall be accessible within function and procedure bodies without - being passed as explicit parameters. + 7H. Formal Array Parameters. The number of dimensions for formal array parameters must + be specified in programs and shall be determinable during translation. Determination of + the subscript range for formal array parameters may be delayed until invocation and may + vary from call to call. Subscript ranges shall be accessible within function and + procedure bodies without being passed as explicit parameters. no yes @@ -1601,13 +1683,14 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 7I. Restrictions to Prevent Aliasing. The language shall attempt to prevent aliasing (l.e., multiple - access paths to the same variable or record component) that is not intended, but shall not prohibit - all aliasing. Aliasing shall not be permitted between output parameters nor between an input-output - parameter and a nonlocal variable. Unintended aliasing shall not be permitted between input-output - parameters. A restriction limiting actual input-output parameters to variables that are nowhere - referenced as nonlocals within a function or routine, is not prohibited. All aliasing of components - of elements of an indirect type shall be considered intentional. + 7I. Restrictions to Prevent Aliasing. The language shall attempt to prevent aliasing + (i.e., multiple access paths to the same variable or record component) that is not + intended, but shall not prohibit all aliasing. Aliasing shall not be permitted between + output parameters nor between an input-output parameter and a nonlocal variable. + Unintended aliasing shall not be permitted between input-output parameters. A + restriction limiting actual input-output parameters to variables that are nowhere + referenced as nonlocals within a function or routine, is not prohibited. All aliasing of + components of elements of an indirect type shall be considered intentional. no yes @@ -1621,9 +1704,10 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 8A. Low Level Input-Output. There shall be a few low level input-output operations that send and - receive control information to and from physical channels and devices. The low level operations - shall be chosen to insure that all user level input-output operations can be defined within the language. + 8A. Low Level Input-Output. There shall be a few low level input-output operations that + send and receive control information to and from physical channels and devices. The low + level operations shall be chosen to insure that all user level input-output operations + can be defined within the language. partial? no? @@ -1638,10 +1722,11 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 8B. User Level Input-Output. The language shall specify (i.e., give calling format and general - semantics) a recommended set of user level input-output operations. These shall include operations - to create, delete, open, close, read, write, position, and interrogate both sequential and random - access files and to alter the association between logical files and physical devices. + 8B. User Level Input-Output. The language shall specify (i.e., give calling format and + general semantics) a recommended set of user level input-output operations. These shall + include operations to create, delete, open, close, read, write, position, and + interrogate both sequential and random access files and to alter the association between + logical files and physical devices. yes yes @@ -1655,9 +1740,10 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 8C. Input Restrictions. User level input shall be restricted to data whose record representations - are known to the translator (i.e., data that is created and written entirely within the program - or data whose representation is explicitly specified in the program). + 8C. Input Restrictions. User level input shall be restricted to data whose record + representations are known to the translator (i.e., data that is created and written + entirely within the program or data whose representation is explicitly specified in the + program). yes yes @@ -1671,9 +1757,9 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 8D. Operating System Independence. The language shall not require the presence of an operating - system. [Note that on many machines it will be necessary to provide run-time procedures to - implement some features of the language.] + 8D. Operating System Independence. The language shall not require the presence of an + operating system. [Note that on many machines it will be necessary to provide run-time + procedures to implement some features of the language.] yes yes @@ -1687,9 +1773,9 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 8E. Resource Control. There shall be a few low level operations to interrogate and control - physical resources (e.g., memory or processors) that are managed (e.g., allocated or scheduled) - by built-in features of the language. + 8E. Resource Control. There shall be a few low level operations to interrogate and + control physical resources (e.g., memory or processors) that are managed (e.g., + allocated or scheduled) by built-in features of the language. mostly mostly @@ -1698,18 +1784,19 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D supports custom garbage collection and thread priorities. Standard Pascal does not define ways to - control physical resources, but popular implementations such as Free Pascal provide both custom memory - management and thread facilities. + D supports custom garbage collection and thread priorities. Standard Pascal does not + define ways to control physical resources, but popular implementations such as Free + Pascal provide both custom memory management and thread facilities. - 8F. Formating. There shall be predefined operations to convert between the symbolic and internal - representation of all types that have literal forms in the language (e.g., strings of digits to - integers, or an enumeration element to its symbolic form). These conversion operations shall - have the same semantics as those specified for literals in programs. + 8F. Formating. There shall be predefined operations to convert between the symbolic and + internal representation of all types that have literal forms in the language (e.g., + strings of digits to integers, or an enumeration element to its symbolic form). These + conversion operations shall have the same semantics as those specified for literals in + programs. yes yes @@ -1724,10 +1811,11 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 9A. Parallel Processing. It shall be possible to define parallel processes. Processes (i.e., activation - instances of such a definition) may be initiated at any point within the scope of the definition. - Each process (activation) must have a name. It shall not be possible to exit the scope of a process - name unless the process is terminated (or uninitiated). + 9A. Parallel Processing. It shall be possible to define parallel processes. Processes + (i.e., activation instances of such a definition) may be initiated at any point within + the scope of the definition. Each process (activation) must have a name. It shall not be + possible to exit the scope of a process name unless the process is terminated (or + uninitiated). yes mostly @@ -1736,18 +1824,20 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D provides this functionality with the std.parallelism and core.thread libraries. Rust provides this - with the std::thread library. Parasail is designed to be implicitly parallel by default, and thus the - lightweight threads used do not have names. Pascal does not have built in thread or process facilities, - and must rely on operating system specific libraries. + D provides this functionality with the std.parallelism and core.thread libraries. Rust + provides this with the std::thread library. Parasail is designed to be implicitly + parallel by default, and thus the lightweight threads used do not have names. Pascal + does not have built in thread or process facilities, and must rely on operating system + specific libraries. - 9B. Parallel Process Implementation. The parallel processing facility shall be designed to minimize - execution time and space. Processes shall have consistent semantics whether implemented on multicomputers, - multiprocessors, or with interleaved execution on a single processor. + 9B. Parallel Process Implementation. The parallel processing facility shall be designed + to minimize execution time and space. Processes shall have consistent semantics whether + implemented on multicomputers, multiprocessors, or with interleaved execution on a + single processor. yes yes @@ -1761,10 +1851,11 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 9C. Shared Variables and Mutual Exclusion. It shall be.possible to mark variables that are shared - among parallel processes. An unmarked variable that is assigned on one path and used on another - shall cause a warning. It shall be possible efficiently to perform mutual exclusion in programs. - The language shall not require any use of mutual exclusion. + 9C. Shared Variables and Mutual Exclusion. It shall be.possible to mark variables that + are shared among parallel processes. An unmarked variable that is assigned on one path + and used on another shall cause a warning. It shall be possible efficiently to perform + mutual exclusion in programs. The language shall not require any use of mutual + exclusion. partial? yes @@ -1773,20 +1864,21 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D supports shared variables and atomic operations, however the idiomatic way of threading is to - rely on immutable data and message passing. + D supports shared variables and atomic operations, however the idiomatic way of + threading is to rely on immutable data and message passing. - 9D. Scheduling. The semantics of the built-in scheduling algorithm shall be first-in-first-out - within priorities. A process may alter its own priority. If the language provides a default - priority for new processes it shall be the priority of its initiating process. The built-in - scheduling algorithm shall not require that simultaneously executed processes on different - processors have the same priority. [Note that this rule gives maximum scheduling control to the - user without loss of efficiency. Note also that priority specification does not impose a specific - execution order among parallel paths and thus does not provide a means for mutual exclusion.] + 9D. Scheduling. The semantics of the built-in scheduling algorithm shall be + first-in-first-out within priorities. A process may alter its own priority. If the + language provides a default priority for new processes it shall be the priority of its + initiating process. The built-in scheduling algorithm shall not require that + simultaneously executed processes on different processors have the same priority. [Note + that this rule gives maximum scheduling control to the user without loss of efficiency. + Note also that priority specification does not impose a specific execution order among + parallel paths and thus does not provide a means for mutual exclusion.] yes? yes? @@ -1800,11 +1892,11 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 9E. Real Time. It shall be possible to access a real time clock. There shall be translation time - constants to convert between the implementation units and the program units for real time. On any - control path, it shall be possible to delay until at least a specified time before continuing - execution. A process may have an accessible clock giving the cumulative processing time (i.e., CPU - time) for that process. + 9E. Real Time. It shall be possible to access a real time clock. There shall be + translation time constants to convert between the implementation units and the program + units for real time. On any control path, it shall be possible to delay until at least a + specified time before continuing execution. A process may have an accessible clock + giving the cumulative processing time (i.e., CPU time) for that process. yes yes @@ -1819,8 +1911,9 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 9G. Asynchronous Termination. It shall be possible to terminate another process. The terminated - process may designate the sequence of statements it will execute in response to the induced termination. + 9G. Asynchronous Termination. It shall be possible to terminate another process. The + terminated process may designate the sequence of statements it will execute in response + to the induced termination. yes no? @@ -1829,17 +1922,18 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D achieves this with std.parallelism and std.process. Pascal programs call an operating system dependent - library to perform this. Parasail is structured around implicit pervasive parallelism so it's questionable - how applicable this requirement is. Rust achieves this with std::process::Child. + D achieves this with std.parallelism and std.process. Pascal programs call an operating + system dependent library to perform this. Parasail is structured around implicit + pervasive parallelism so it's questionable how applicable this requirement is. Rust + achieves this with std::process::Child. - 9H. Passing Data. It shall be possible to pass data between processes that do not share variables. - It shall be possible to delay such data transfers until both the sending and receiving processes - have requested the transfer. + 9H. Passing Data. It shall be possible to pass data between processes that do not share + variables. It shall be possible to delay such data transfers until both the sending and + receiving processes have requested the transfer. yes yes @@ -1854,9 +1948,9 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 9I. Signalling. It shall be possible to set a signal (without waiting), and to wait for a signal - (without delay, if it is already set). Setting a signal, that is not already set, shall cause - exactly one waiting path to continue. + 9I. Signalling. It shall be possible to set a signal (without waiting), and to wait for + a signal (without delay, if it is already set). Setting a signal, that is not already + set, shall cause exactly one waiting path to continue. mostly? mostly? @@ -1870,8 +1964,9 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 9J. Waiting. It shall be possible to wait for, determine, and act upon the first completed of - several wait operations (including those used for data passing, signalling, and real time). + 9J. Waiting. It shall be possible to wait for, determine, and act upon the first + completed of several wait operations (including those used for data passing, signalling, + and real time). mostly? mostly? @@ -1885,12 +1980,12 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 10A. Exception Handling Facility. There shall be an exception handling mechanism for responding - to unplanned error situations detected in declarations and statements during execution. The - exception situations shall include errors detected by hardware, software errors detected during - execution, error situations in built-in operations, and user defined exceptions. Exception - identifiers shall have a scope. Exceptions should add to the execution time of programs only - if they are raised. + 10A. Exception Handling Facility. There shall be an exception handling mechanism for + responding to unplanned error situations detected in declarations and statements during + execution. The exception situations shall include errors detected by hardware, software + errors detected during execution, error situations in built-in operations, and user + defined exceptions. Exception identifiers shall have a scope. Exceptions should add to + the execution time of programs only if they are raised. yes partial? @@ -1899,22 +1994,24 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Standard Pascal does not specify how to treat errors, whether with exceptions or otherwise. However - later variations including FreePascal and Delphi support exceptions. Parasail attempts to check for - all possible errors at compile time, however it is unclear from the reference manual how hardware - problems are handled. Rust opts for using return value types to show errors rather than exceptions. + Standard Pascal does not specify how to treat errors, whether with exceptions or + otherwise. However later variations including FreePascal and Delphi support exceptions. + Parasail attempts to check for all possible errors at compile time, however it is + unclear from the reference manual how hardware problems are handled. Rust opts for using + return value types to show errors rather than exceptions. - 10B. Error Situations. The errors detectable during execution shall include exceeding the - specified range of an array subscript, exceeding the specified range of a variable, exceeding - the implemented range of a variable, attempting to access an uninitialized variable, attempting - to access a field of a variant that is not present, requesting a resource (such as stack or heap - storage) when an insufficient quantity remains, and failing to satisfy a program specified assertion. - [Note that some are very expensive to detect unless aided by special hardware, and consequently - their detection will often be suppressed (see 10G).] + 10B. Error Situations. The errors detectable during execution shall include exceeding + the specified range of an array subscript, exceeding the specified range of a variable, + exceeding the implemented range of a variable, attempting to access an uninitialized + variable, attempting to access a field of a variant that is not present, requesting a + resource (such as stack or heap storage) when an insufficient quantity remains, and + failing to satisfy a program specified assertion. [Note that some are very expensive to + detect unless aided by special hardware, and consequently their detection will often be + suppressed (see 10G).] partial? mostly @@ -1923,20 +2020,21 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Parasail is constructed to detect all of these mentioned errors, except the out of memory error, at - compile time. + Parasail is constructed to detect all of these mentioned errors, except the out of + memory error, at compile time. - 10C. Raising Exceptions. There shall be an operation that raises an exception. Raising an - exception shall cause transfer of control to the most local enclosing exception handler for - that exception without completing execution of the current statement or declaration, but shall - not of itself cause transfer out of a function, procedure, or process. Exceptions that are not - handled within a function or procedure shall be raised again at the point of call in their callers. - Exceptions that are not handled within a process shall terminate the process. Exceptions that can - be raised by built-in operations shall be given in the language definition. + 10C. Raising Exceptions. There shall be an operation that raises an exception. Raising + an exception shall cause transfer of control to the most local enclosing exception + handler for that exception without completing execution of the current statement or + declaration, but shall not of itself cause transfer out of a function, procedure, or + process. Exceptions that are not handled within a function or procedure shall be raised + again at the point of call in their callers. Exceptions that are not handled within a + process shall terminate the process. Exceptions that can be raised by built-in + operations shall be given in the language definition. yes partial @@ -1945,20 +2043,22 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Standard Pascal does not specify how to handle errors, whether exceptions or otherwise, see 10A. - It is unclear from the Parasail reference manual whether actual exceptions are used in the language, - but similar functionality is achieved with compile time annotations. Rust opts for using return value - types to show errors rather than exceptions. Various functions and macros are provided that more or - less covers the same thing, but not in a way that satisfies this requirement. + Standard Pascal does not specify how to handle errors, whether exceptions or otherwise, + see 10A. It is unclear from the Parasail reference manual whether actual exceptions are + used in the language, but similar functionality is achieved with compile time + annotations. Rust opts for using return value types to show errors rather than + exceptions. Various functions and macros are provided that more or less covers the same + thing, but not in a way that satisfies this requirement. 10D. Exception Handling. There shall be a control structure for discriminating among the - exceptions that can occur in a specified statement sequence. The user may supply a single - control path for all exceptions not otherwise mentioned in such a discrimination. It shall - be possible to raise the exception that selected the current handler when exiting the handler. + exceptions that can occur in a specified statement sequence. The user may supply a + single control path for all exceptions not otherwise mentioned in such a discrimination. + It shall be possible to raise the exception that selected the current handler when + exiting the handler. yes no? @@ -1967,14 +2067,15 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Standard Pascal does not specify how to handle errors, whether exceptions or otherwise, see 10A. + Standard Pascal does not specify how to handle errors, whether exceptions or otherwise, + see 10A. - 10E. Order of Exceptions. The order in which exceptions in different parts of an expression - are detected shall not be guaranteed by the language or by the translator. + 10E. Order of Exceptions. The order in which exceptions in different parts of an + expression are detected shall not be guaranteed by the language or by the translator. yes? yes @@ -1988,10 +2089,11 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 10F. Assertions. It shall be possible to include assertions in programs. If an assertion is - false when encountered during execution, it shall raise an exception. It shall also be possible - to include assertions, such as the expected frequency for selection of a conditional path, that - cannot be verified. [Note that assertions can be used to aid optimization and maintenance.] + 10F. Assertions. It shall be possible to include assertions in programs. If an assertion + is false when encountered during execution, it shall raise an exception. It shall also + be possible to include assertions, such as the expected frequency for selection of a + conditional path, that cannot be verified. [Note that assertions can be used to aid + optimization and maintenance.] mostly mostly @@ -2006,10 +2108,11 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 10G. Suppressing Exceptions. It shall be possible during translation to suppress individually - the execution time detection of exceptions within a given scope. The language shall not guarantee - the integrity of the values produced when a suppressed exception occurs. [Note that suppression - of an exception is not an assertion that the corresponding error will not occur.] + 10G. Suppressing Exceptions. It shall be possible during translation to suppress + individually the execution time detection of exceptions within a given scope. The + language shall not guarantee the integrity of the values produced when a suppressed + exception occurs. [Note that suppression of an exception is not an assertion that the + corresponding error will not occur.] partial no @@ -2018,24 +2121,24 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - It is possible to statically disallow code from throwing exceptions in D, but that doesn't fulfil - the same function as this requirement. + It is possible to statically disallow code from throwing exceptions in D, but that + doesn't fulfil the same function as this requirement. - 11A. Data Representation. The language shall permit but not require programs to specify a single - physical representation for the elements of a type. These specifications shall be separate from - the logical descriptions. Physical representation shall include object representation of - enumeration elements, order of fields, width of fields, presence of "don't care" fields, - positions of word boundaries, and object machine addresses. In particular, the facility shall - be sufficient to specify the physical representation of any record whose format is determined - by considerations that are entirely external to the program, translator, and language. The - language and its translators shall not guarantee any particular choice for those aspects of - physical representation that are unspecified by the program. It shall be possible to specify - the association of physical resources (e.g., interrupts) to program elements (e.g., exceptions - or signals). + 11A. Data Representation. The language shall permit but not require programs to specify + a single physical representation for the elements of a type. These specifications shall + be separate from the logical descriptions. Physical representation shall include object + representation of enumeration elements, order of fields, width of fields, presence of + "don't care" fields, positions of word boundaries, and object machine addresses. In + particular, the facility shall be sufficient to specify the physical representation of + any record whose format is determined by considerations that are entirely external to + the program, translator, and language. The language and its translators shall not + guarantee any particular choice for those aspects of physical representation that are + unspecified by the program. It shall be possible to specify the association of physical + resources (e.g., interrupts) to program elements (e.g., exceptions or signals). partial? no? @@ -2049,13 +2152,13 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 11C. Translation Time Facilities. To aid conditional compilation, it shall be possible to - interrogate properties that are known during translation including characteristics of the - object configuration, of function and procedure calling environments, and of actual parameters. - For example, it shall be possible to determine whether the caller has suppressed a given - exception, the callers optimization criteria, whether an actual parameter is a translation - time expression, the type of actual generic parameters, and the values of constraints - characterizing the subtype of actual parameters. + 11C. Translation Time Facilities. To aid conditional compilation, it shall be possible + to interrogate properties that are known during translation including characteristics of + the object configuration, of function and procedure calling environments, and of actual + parameters. For example, it shall be possible to determine whether the caller has + suppressed a given exception, the callers optimization criteria, whether an actual + parameter is a translation time expression, the type of actual generic parameters, and + the values of constraints characterizing the subtype of actual parameters. partial partial? @@ -2069,13 +2172,14 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 11D. Object System Configuration. The object system configuration must be explicitly specified - in each separately translated unit. Such specifications must include the object machine model, - the operating system if present, peripheral equipment, and the device configuration, and may - include special hardware options and memory size. The translator will use such specifications - when generating object code. [Note that programs that depend on the specific characteristics - of the object machine, may be made more portable by enclosing those portions in branches of - conditionals on the object machine configuration.] + 11D. Object System Configuration. The object system configuration must be explicitly + specified in each separately translated unit. Such specifications must include the + object machine model, the operating system if present, peripheral equipment, and the + device configuration, and may include special hardware options and memory size. The + translator will use such specifications when generating object code. [Note that programs + that depend on the specific characteristics of the object machine, may be made more + portable by enclosing those portions in branches of conditionals on the object machine + configuration.] no? no? @@ -2089,10 +2193,10 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 11E. Interface to Other Languages. There shall be a machine independent interface to other - programming languages including assembly languages. Any program element that is referenced - in both the source language program and foreign code must be identified in the interface. The - source language of the foreign code must also be identified. + 11E. Interface to Other Languages. There shall be a machine independent interface to + other programming languages including assembly languages. Any program element that is + referenced in both the source language program and foreign code must be identified in + the interface. The source language of the foreign code must also be identified. yes no @@ -2101,22 +2205,23 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - D provides interfaces to C, C++ and assembly. Many Pascal implementations provide interfaces to - C and assembly. Parasail provides no interfaces to other languages. Rust provides an interface to C - and assembly. + D provides interfaces to C, C++ and assembly. Many Pascal implementations provide + interfaces to C and assembly. Parasail provides no interfaces to other languages. Rust + provides an interface to C and assembly. - 11F. Optimization. Programs may advise translators on the optimization criteria to be used in - a scope. It shall be possible in programs to specify whether minimum translation costs or - minimum execution costs are more important, and whether execution time or memory space is to - be given preference. All such specifications shall be optional. Except for the amount of time - and space required during execution, approximate values beyond the specified precision, the - order in which exceptions are detected, and the occurrence of side effects within an expression, - optimization shall not alter the semantics of correct programs, (e.g., the semantics of parameters - will be unaffected by the choice between open and closed calls). + 11F. Optimization. Programs may advise translators on the optimization criteria to be + used in a scope. It shall be possible in programs to specify whether minimum translation + costs or minimum execution costs are more important, and whether execution time or + memory space is to be given preference. All such specifications shall be optional. + Except for the amount of time and space required during execution, approximate values + beyond the specified precision, the order in which exceptions are detected, and the + occurrence of side effects within an expression, optimization shall not alter the + semantics of correct programs, (e.g., the semantics of parameters will be unaffected by + the choice between open and closed calls). partial? no? @@ -2130,12 +2235,12 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 12A. Library. There shall be an easily accessible library of generic definitions and separately - translated units. All predefined definitions shall be in the library. Library entries may - include those used as input-output packages, common pools of shared declarations, application - oriented software packages, encapsulations, and machine configuration specifications. The - library shall be structured to allow entries to be associated with particular applications, - projects, and users. + 12A. Library. There shall be an easily accessible library of generic definitions and + separately translated units. All predefined definitions shall be in the library. Library + entries may include those used as input-output packages, common pools of shared + declarations, application oriented software packages, encapsulations, and machine + configuration specifications. The library shall be structured to allow entries to be + associated with particular applications, projects, and users. yes yes @@ -2149,10 +2254,11 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 12B. Separately Translated Units. Separately translated units may be assembled into operational - systems. It shall be possible for a separately translated unit to reference exported definitions - of other units. All language imposed restrictions shall be enforced across such interfaces. - Separate translation shall not change the semantics of a correct program. + 12B. Separately Translated Units. Separately translated units may be assembled into + operational systems. It shall be possible for a separately translated unit to reference + exported definitions of other units. All language imposed restrictions shall be enforced + across such interfaces. Separate translation shall not change the semantics of a correct + program. mostly? yes? @@ -2166,11 +2272,11 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 12D. Generic Definitions. Functions, procedures, types, and encapsulations may have generic - parameters. Generic parameters shall be instantiated during translation and shall be interpreted - in the context of the instantiation. An actual generic parameter may be any defined identifier - (including those for variables, functions, procedures, processes, and types) or the value of any - expression. + 12D. Generic Definitions. Functions, procedures, types, and encapsulations may have + generic parameters. Generic parameters shall be instantiated during translation and + shall be interpreted in the context of the instantiation. An actual generic parameter + may be any defined identifier (including those for variables, functions, procedures, + processes, and types) or the value of any expression. yes yes @@ -2179,18 +2285,19 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Rust only accepts types as generic parameters. Standard Pascal does not support generics, but later - Pascal derivatives such as Free Pascal and Delphi both do. + Rust only accepts types as generic parameters. Standard Pascal does not support + generics, but later Pascal derivatives such as Free Pascal and Delphi both do. - 13A. Defining Documents. The language shall have a complete and unambiguous defining document. - It should be possible to predict the possible actions of any syntactically correct program - from the language definition. The language documentation shall include the syntax, semantics, - and appropriate examples of each built-in and predefined feature. A recommended set of - translation diagnostic and warning messages shall be included in the language definition. + 13A. Defining Documents. The language shall have a complete and unambiguous defining + document. It should be possible to predict the possible actions of any syntactically + correct program from the language definition. The language documentation shall include + the syntax, semantics, and appropriate examples of each built-in and predefined feature. + A recommended set of translation diagnostic and warning messages shall be included in + the language definition. mostly? mostly? @@ -2205,7 +2312,8 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader 13B. Standards. There will be a standard definition of the language. Procedures will be - established for standards control and for certification that translators meet the standard. + established for standards control and for certification that translators meet the + standard. no no @@ -2219,10 +2327,10 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 13C. Completeness of Implementations. Translators shall implement the standard definition. - Every translator shall be able to process any syntactically correct program. Every feature - that is available to the user shall be defined in the standard, in an accessible library, - or in the source program. + 13C. Completeness of Implementations. Translators shall implement the standard + definition. Every translator shall be able to process any syntactically correct program. + Every feature that is available to the user shall be defined in the standard, in an + accessible library, or in the source program. mostly? yes @@ -2236,15 +2344,16 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 13D. Translator Diagnostics. Translators shall be responsible for reporting errors that are - detectable during translation and for optimizing object code. Translators shall be responsible - for the integrity of object code in affected translation units when any separately translated - unit is modified, and shall ensure that shared definitions have compatible representations in - all translation units. Translators shall do full syntax and type checking, shall check that - all language imposed restrictions are met, and should provide warnings where constructs will - be dangerous or unusually expensive in execution and shall attempt to detect exceptions during - translation. If the translator determines that a call on a routine will not terminate normally, - the exception shall be reported as a translation error at the point of call. + 13D. Translator Diagnostics. Translators shall be responsible for reporting errors that + are detectable during translation and for optimizing object code. Translators shall be + responsible for the integrity of object code in affected translation units when any + separately translated unit is modified, and shall ensure that shared definitions have + compatible representations in all translation units. Translators shall do full syntax + and type checking, shall check that all language imposed restrictions are met, and + should provide warnings where constructs will be dangerous or unusually expensive in + execution and shall attempt to detect exceptions during translation. If the translator + determines that a call on a routine will not terminate normally, the exception shall be + reported as a translation error at the point of call. mostly? yes @@ -2258,12 +2367,12 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - 13E. Translator Characteristics. Translators for the language will be written in the language - and will be able to produce code for a variety of object machines. The machine independent - parts of translators should be separate from code generators. Although it is desirable, - translators need not be able to execute on every object machine. The internal characteristics - of the translator (i.e., the translation method) shall not be specified by the language - definition or standards. + 13E. Translator Characteristics. Translators for the language will be written in the + language and will be able to produce code for a variety of object machines. The machine + independent parts of translators should be separate from code generators. Although it is + desirable, translators need not be able to execute on every object machine. The internal + characteristics of the translator (i.e., the translation method) shall not be specified + by the language definition or standards. mostly mostly @@ -2272,20 +2381,21 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader - Many, but not all, compilers are written in their own language. Parasail and Rust both have - one compiler each, both written in their respective language. + Many, but not all, compilers are written in their own language. Parasail and Rust both + have one compiler each, both written in their respective language. - 13F. Restrictions on Translators. Translators shall fail to translate otherwise correct programs - only when the program requires more resources during translation than are available on the host - machine or when the program calls for resources that are unavailable in the specified object - system configuration. Neither the language nor its translators shall impose arbitrary - restrictions on language features. For example, they shall not impose restrictions on the - number of array dimensions, on the number of identifiers, on the length of identifiers, or - on the number of nested parentheses levels. + 13F. Restrictions on Translators. Translators shall fail to translate otherwise correct + programs only when the program requires more resources during translation than are + available on the host machine or when the program calls for resources that are + unavailable in the specified object system configuration. Neither the language nor its + translators shall impose arbitrary restrictions on language features. For example, they + shall not impose restrictions on the number of array dimensions, on the number of + identifiers, on the length of identifiers, or on the number of nested parentheses + levels. yes yes @@ -2300,13 +2410,14 @@ turned out to be educated guesses. Fairness was the goal, but nonetheless reader 13G. Software Tools and Application Packages. The language should be designed to work in - conjunction with a variety of useful software tools and application support packages. These - will be developed as early as possible and will include editors, interpreters, diagnostic aids, - program analyzers, documentation aids, testing aids, software maintenance tools, optimizers, - and application libraries. There will be a consistent user interface for these tools. Where - practical software tools and aids will be written in the language. Support for the design, - implementation, distribution, and maintenance of translators, software tools and aids, and - application libraries will be provided independently of the individual projects that use them. + conjunction with a variety of useful software tools and application support packages. + These will be developed as early as possible and will include editors, interpreters, + diagnostic aids, program analyzers, documentation aids, testing aids, software + maintenance tools, optimizers, and application libraries. There will be a consistent + user interface for these tools. Where practical software tools and aids will be written + in the language. Support for the design, implementation, distribution, and maintenance + of translators, software tools and aids, and application libraries will be provided + independently of the individual projects that use them. mostly partial diff --git a/project/templates/stvcount.html b/project/templates/stvcount.html index b19b4d7..e06bfb1 100644 --- a/project/templates/stvcount.html +++ b/project/templates/stvcount.html @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@

    Single Transferable Vote Counter

    -

    Git repository: Link

    +

    Git repository: Link

    19/2/2017
    @@ -40,9 +40,9 @@ and his Liberal/National government.

    To calculate the likely outcome, the ballot preference data is needed. That's the easy part, as the Australian Electoral Commission makes that available -here -in the 'Formal preferences' section. Then, a program is needed to execute the STV algorithm, which -is as follows:

    + +here in the 'Formal preferences' section. Then, a program is needed to execute the STV +algorithm, which is as follows:

    1. Set the quota of votes required for a candidate to win.
      2. diff --git a/project/templates/sunset.html b/project/templates/sunset.html index 9354e63..74955a8 100644 --- a/project/templates/sunset.html +++ b/project/templates/sunset.html @@ -11,16 +11,17 @@

      Sunset License

      -

      Git repository: Link

      +

      Git repository: Link

      29/6/2017

      Software licenses bother me. As a general rule I prefer to make my projects open source, -and for that purpose something like the Unlicense -is often sufficient. But if I don't want to put my work in the public domain immediately, then I -have to make use of a copyleft license. And -all of the ones currently available are both incredibly, unnecessarily verbose, and fail to address -the primary failing of modern copyright law, which is the unreasonably long term lengths.

      +and for that purpose something like the Unlicense + is often sufficient. But if I don't want to put my work in the public domain immediately, then +I have to make use of a copyleft license. +And all of the ones currently available are both incredibly, unnecessarily verbose, and fail to +address the primary failing of modern copyright law, which is the unreasonably long term lengths. +

      So after a considerable amount of thought, I've written my own. (I can hear those with legal knowledge wailing and gnashing their teeth already.) Care has been taken to mimic the phrasing used diff --git a/project/templates/thue2a.html b/project/templates/thue2a.html index 7cc9a5b..806f096 100644 --- a/project/templates/thue2a.html +++ b/project/templates/thue2a.html @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@

      Thue Version 2a

      -

      Git repository: Link

      +

      Git repository: Link

      1/1/2017
      -- cgit