[said Steve] > > Having been in the thick of this I would like to make a minor > correction. The US was against level 1 because it was an extension of > the original language specification in the Pascal Users Manual. The > original scope was to be ONLY the language defined there. I voted > against the proposal for that reason. At the time I was representing > the duPont company and not a coimpiler company. The major argument I > had against the idea was that you could not use the feature without > doing something outside the language or just coping the code into your > program. There was not library facility, preprocessor or separate > compilation facility. A more complete solution needed to be done. > > This is just my opinion. > > Steve Schwarm > Wow, thanks for the clarification! I never heard that one before. As Steve implies, neither Level 1 nor Level 0 described a language that was useful for more than small programs. Pascal was designed for teaching purposes, not to be industrially useful, and the ISO standard was, in that sense, a joke because any Pascal usefulness came from proprietary extensions anyway. There was some discussion of an extended Pascal standard, but I don't think this ever came to fruition. That being the case, the best approximation we've seen to a really grown-up Pascal standard is Ada. If memory serves, Red, Blue, and Yellow were genuine extended Pascals. Green was not, but OTOH it's a pretty close derivative. Mike