GNU Algol 68 transput - why not use QAD?

[Jose E. Marchesi]

There may be two problems though:

1) The QAD prelude uses some ALGOL68-RS extensions, which very likely
   includes straightening.  Porting the relevant code may not be
   trivial.

2) Unfortunately Dr. Sian Leitch (later Sian Mountbatten) didn't specify
   any license in the source files under ctrans/qad.  Just:

	Copyright (C) 2000 Sian Leitch

   Since she is deceased, we cannot ask her to clarify the distribution
   terms of that code.

   It _might_ be ok to assume these files are intended to use the same
   distribution terms than the ctrans compiler itself, which is:


       Use, reproduction, production of amended versions and/or transfer
       of this Program is permitted provided that:

       (a)  this legend be preserved on any such reproduction and amended version,
       (b)  any amended version of this Program be clearly marked to show the
            nature of the amendment and of the name of the amending organisation,
            and
       (c)  any recipient  of such reproduction or amended version accept the
            conditions set out in this legend.


   The copyright holder of ctrans is the UK Crown.

The first problem is not a big one necessarily.  We will have to face
straightening sooner or later, be it via user visible coercion like
ALGOL 68RS or, as I would prefer, via compiler-wired pragmats in the
relevant transput procedures.

I would like to ask the Free Software Foundation about the second, to be
on firm ground.

> I like Mountbatten's QAD, including the different channels it supports.
> She spent a looong time getting that prelude right.
>
> We could first port it from ALGOL68-RS (ctrans) to GNU Algol 68, then
> see to do some modifications.
>
> I would be ok with that approach.
>
>> Good morning everyone,
>>
>> In the process of attempting to implement van Vliet's transput code on top
>> of POSIX, I've been spending more time looking at QAD (the Algol 68 to C
>> translator's standard prelude and transput code) as well as /Programming
>> Algol 68 Made Easy/, Mountbatten's textbook on using a68 toc.
>>
>> This morning I realized that, were someone to ask me why GNU Algol 68
>> should not use QAD transput, I could not present a cogent argument against
>> that idea.
>>
>> Sooooooooooo.... anyone here familiar with Algol 68 and willing to convince
>> me that using QAD transput - as "as-is as possible" - would be a bad idea?