"Seymour J Metz" wrote in message
news:bl0pr05mb5156e311e88735a8afbef5ca99...@bl0pr05mb5156.namprd05.prod.outlook.com...
If you don't care about maintainable code than should is to strong.
If you care about maintainable code then should is too weak.
The purpose of a LRM is to tell you what
On 2020-09-06 11:50, Seymour J Metz wrote:
Eschew obfuscation. Either just use 0 and one, or write
false=0;true=1. Similarly, for PL/I either just use '0'b and '1'b or
write false='0'b;true='1'b;.
VALUE is a good alternative also.
On 2020-09-06 13:33, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 08:13:42 +1000, Robin Vowels wrote:
As for writing formulas, I prefer to follow a well-known formula,
thus:
volume = 4/3 * 3.14159 * radius**3
Beware! Than might left-associate as:
volume = ( 4/3 ) * 3.14159 * radius**3
-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Robin Vowels
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2020 18:14
As for writing formulas, I prefer to follow a well-known formula, thus:
volume = 4/3 * 3.14159 * radius**3
However, if I'm interested in efficiency,
From: "Robert Prins"
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2020 3:42 AM
On 2020-09-06 13:07, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 17:25:45 +1000, Robin Vowels wrote:
Beware! Than might left-associate as:
volume = ( 4/3 ) * 3.14159 * radius**3
... and the quotient of integers,
From: "Paul Gilmartin" <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2020 1:33 PM
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 08:13:42 +1000, Robin Vowels wrote:
As for writing formulas, I prefer to follow a well-known formula, thus:
volume = 4/3 * 3.14159 * ra
From: "Bob Bridges"
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2020 8:29 AM
To tell you the truth, I haven't written for a compiler in long enough that
I don't have any idea which ones do what. I wouldn't trust REXX, CLIST or
VBA to do it; I try to assume the worst, and make such things explicit.
Actually
n.
On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 7:34 PM Robin Vowels
wrote:
On 2020-09-07 09:35, Joe Monk wrote:
> "PL/I doesn't have integers."
>
> Sorry Shmuel, youre incorrect.
>
> FIXED BINARY (15,0) is a 2 byte integer and FIXED BINARY (31,0) is a 4
> byte
> integer.
>
> &
Table 16.
It's been that way since 1965.
* given that the maximum precision is 15.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on
behalf of Robin Vowels
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2020 8:09 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Constant
.ua.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2020 11:33 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Constant Identifiers
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 08:13:42 +1000, Robin Vowels wrote:
>
>As for writing formulas, I prefer to follow a well-known formula, thus:
>
>volume = 4/3 * 3.14159 * radius**
"Seymour J Metz" wrote in message
news:bl0pr05mb5156591ed17d7bddfaee695299...@bl0pr05mb5156.namprd05.prod.outlook.com...
The default type for 3 and 4 is FIXED BINARY.
No it's not.
Constants have the type and precision of the constant.
Thus, 3 and 4 are both FIXED DECIMAL (1)
> PL/I does not
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Gilmartin" <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2020 11:07 PM
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 17:25:45 +1000, Robin Vowels wrote:
And C:
662 $ cat typetest.c
#include
int main() {
printf( "%10.6
On 2020-09-07 09:35, Joe Monk wrote:
"PL/I doesn't have integers."
Sorry Shmuel, youre incorrect.
FIXED BINARY (15,0) is a 2 byte integer and FIXED BINARY (31,0) is a 4
byte
integer.
"The ratiio 4/3 is FIXED BIN,"
No, its FIXED DECIMAL (1,0)...
No it isn't. 4/3 yields 1.33... to 15
- Original Message -
From: "Seymour J Metz"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2020 5:33 AM
PL/I doesn't have integers.
PL/I has always had integers.
The ratiio 4/3 is FIXED BIN,
No it not. It is FIXED DECIMAL -- as I said a few days ago.
And it hasn't changed since.
with some
_
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Robin Vowels
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2020 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: Constant Identifiers
From: "Paul Gilmartin" <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2020 1:33 PM
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 08
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Constant Identifiers
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 08:13:42 +1000, Robin Vowels wrote:
As for writing formulas, I prefer to follow a well-known formula, thus:
volume = 4/3 * 3.14159 * radius**3
Beware! Than might left-associate as:
volume = ( 4/3 ) * 3.14159 * radius**3
...
From: "Paul Gilmartin" <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2020 1:33 PM
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 08:13:42 +1000, Robin Vowels wrote:
As for writing formulas, I prefer to follow a well-known formula, thus:
volume = 4/3 * 3.14159 * ra
On 2020-09-10 00:33, Seymour J Metz wrote:
Since when is 1.33... an integer?
Who said it was?
A/B (both integers with values 4 and 3 respectively),
yield exactly 1.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on
behalf of Robin Vowels
Sent: Wednesday
1 6
*/
On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 7:34 PM Robin Vowels wrote:
On 2020-09-07 09:35, Joe Monk wrote:
> "PL/I doesn't have integers."
>
> Sorry Shmuel, youre incorrect.
>
> FIXED BINARY (15,0) is a 2 byte integer and FIXED BINARY (31,0)
Discussion List on
behalf of Robin Vowels
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 10:14 AM
- Original Message -
From: "Seymour J Metz"
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2020 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Constant Identifiers
4/3 yields 1.3, 04/3 yields 1332, ...
Rubbish.
4/3 yields 1.
33 1 6
*/
As you can see, the results are the same under IBM and ANS rules.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Robin Vowels
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2020 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Constant I
Sun, 6 Sep 2020 17:25:45 +1000, Robin Vowels wrote:
Beware! Than might left-associate as:
volume = ( 4/3 ) * 3.14159 * radius**3
... and the quotient of integers, 4/3, is 1.
No it's not. 4/3 yields 1.33.. to 15 digits in PL/I.
You're thinking of FORTRAN.
And C:
662 $ cat typ
- Original Message -
From: "Seymour J Metz"
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 1:02 AM
You did, in the comment.
No I didn't. You misread it.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Robin Vowels
Sent: Wednesday, S
result in PL/I, namely, 6:
DECLARE (I, J) FIXED DECIMAL (15);
I = 4; J = 3;
PUT (I/J);
will print 6
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on
behalf of Robin Vowels
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2020 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Constant Identifiers
- Original
On 2020-09-05 01:43, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
I'm a PL/I novice, or less. A recent thread here moved me
to browse the Ref., where I read that any constant used more
than once must be declared and the identifier used instead.
Sorta tyrannical enforcement of coding conventions. OK.
I agree that
On 2020-09-05 05:03, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 17:10:36 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
Sounds to me like the documentation writer was a bit confused. Looks
to me like it should read instead:
If th nnumber 3.1416 is used in more than one place in the program,
then you
.zos.doc/pg/rules.html
Joe
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:23 AM Robin Vowels
wrote:
On 2020-09-07 13:05, Joe Monk wrote:
> "No it isn't. 4/3 yields 1.33... to 15 digits,
> and is of precision (15,14)"
>
> Depends on RULES(IBM) or RULES(ANS). If its RULES(IBM) it will never
You think that I am not looking at IBM's PL/I LRM?
On 2020-09-07 23:25, Joe Monk wrote:
The answer is here:
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSY2V3_5.2.0/com.ibm.ent.pl1.zos.doc/lr/resarithoprt.html
Joe
--
For
On 2020-09-09 14:53, Seymour J Metz wrote:
Has IBM announced an intention to support the vector instructions to
allow more precision for FIXED DEC and FIXED BIN in PL/I?
FIXED DECIMAL gives you up to 31 digits.
FIXED BINARY gives you up to 63 bits.
How much do you need?
Are there
other
nothing like what you wrote.
You wrote (4/3)*6
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on
behalf of Robin Vowels
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 5:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PL/I integers (was: Constant Identifiers)
On 2020-09-07 16:13
On 2020-10-12 00:57, Bill Johnson wrote:
So market cap is now the determining factor for the best companies?
Here’s the 1980 list of market cap leaders. Had IBM not been forced
out of the PC market, I’d bet IBM would still be at or near the top,
and MSFT wouldn’t be.
"Forced out". I think not.
On 2020-11-20 12:32, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
jn:
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.4.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r4.hasc300/has2z1_Use_of_unblocked_records_for_SYSIN_and_SYSOUT_data_sets.htm
You should not block SYSIN and SYSOUT data sets because the SAM
(sequential access
On 2021-06-17 19:15, Rob Scott wrote:
When it comes time to change the length of a token, or locate usage
occurrences, I would much prefer to hunt for Token_Len rather than
determine usage context for some numeric. I would also probably feel
more confident about the results.
Absolutely - let
- Original Message -
From: "Phil Smith III"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 8:08 AM
A friend writes:
In a conversation elsewhere I mentioned the oops between JCL using /* as end
of dataset and PL/I using /* */ for comment brackets - meaning that PL/I had
to start in column 2
From: "Joe Monk"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 8:36 AM
PL/I is free format. The default is 2 - 72,
IBM's catalogue procedure was set up for columns 2 to 72.
Sites could change that -- as ours did -- to read columns 1 to 80.
but there is a compiler option to change that (SORMGIN).
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Schwab"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 8:12 AM
PL/I uses column one for a carriage control while JCL requires a / in
column one, so this was never a problem
PL/I does not use card column 1 for carriage control.
That was an option that a
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Mills"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 11:19 AM
column 1 is reserved for carriage control. That seems to conflate source code
with SYSPRINT.
It does seem to, but in fact PL/I supports source listing formatting using ANSI
carriage
Burroughs had the B5000 in 1961.
At 100,000 instructions per second, the 7090 wasn't all that fast.
Pilot ACE, in 1951, could execute 15,000 instructions per second.
On 2021-12-22 17:26, Tom Brennan wrote:
I don't know what's going on with the comparisons lately, but here's a
fun one. Paging
On 2021-12-23 01:59, Bob Bridges wrote:
I'm enjoying the article so far, and I'm sure contributors will chime
in who are far more knowledgeable than I. But the first thing I
notice is that he spends some time estimating how inferior the early
7090 was to a modern laptop in terms of clock speed,
IBM OS Optimising Compiler is a product of the 1970s.
VisualAge PL/I is a product of the 1990s or post 2000.
On 2021-10-30 09:41, Charles Mills wrote:
Is VisualAgeR PL/I V2 the same product as 5668-910 IBM OS PL/I
Optimizing
Compiler V2?
Charles
We used to use RECFM=V in the 1960s with SYSIN
for PL/I source programs on paper tape.
On 2021-10-29 11:56, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 22:49:49 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
What happens with
//INFILE DD DISP=SHR,DSN=MY.VB.FILE
// DD *,DCB=(RECFM=V,LRECL=204)
On 2021-12-10 10:02, Joe Monk wrote:
Hi,
Would this work?
Definitely not. It's the same problem as before.
TM requires the mask as part of its instruction.
As others have suggested, the B operand can be supplied
by using EX.
An alternative would be to use NC to test for the single bit.
- Original Message -
From: "Seymour J Metz"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2021 12:56 AM
For a test of a single bit you can do a logical and on a copy of the byte or
use NRK.
For testing multiple bits you can execute a TM.
You mean, EXexute a TM.
---
Murphy's Law is "If anything can go wrong, it will."
Roberts's Law is: "Even if it can't go wrong, it will."
(will the real Murphy please stand up?)
On 2021-12-11 08:04, Charles Mills wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law
Charles
You need to look at FETCH and RELEASE PL/I statements.
Procedures not already in main storage are loaded from the disk.
►► FETCH ▼
,
entry-constant
SET ( ptr-ref ) TITLE ( char-expr )
►
► ; ►◄
Dynamic loading of an external procedure
entry-constant
Specifies the name by which the procedure to
Notepad has a problem with large files.
It loads only the first part of a large file.
On 2022-03-22 10:53, Bob Bridges wrote:
I agree. I get the impression that most Windows users ignore it
entirely, and I know I have coworkers who use MS Word for pretty much
all their note-taking. I use
The list of attributes are obviously PL/I, and that suggests that
PL/I could be the means of solving the problem.
On 2022-03-24 08:20, Horacio Luis Villa wrote:
Hi,
the last 3 columns are CHAR but you don't want them quoted?
Don't know how to do it using SORT. I'd do it with Rexx.
On 2022-03-28 19:07, Seymour J Metz wrote:
True, but it's convenient to be able to write things like "foo :=
sine(bar := baz);".
Nonsense.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
From: "Seymour J Metz"
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 4:10 AM
There are no troublesome characters. If it's CHARZ
There's no such attribute. Do you mean VARYINGZ?
then a '00'X marks the end of the string, as in C. Otherwise there is an
explicit length
that is the same regardless of what
On 2022-03-28 19:10, Seymour J Metz wrote:
Exaclly, especially since Algol 60 was one of the three languages
folded into PL/I.
FORTRAN, not Algol, was the starting-point for PL/I.
It was even called FORTRAN VI.
Features of both Algol and COBOL were incorporated into
the language.
.g.) means for
example; had that been a complete list I would have written id est
(i.e.).
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on
behalf of Robin Vowels [robi...@dodo.com.au]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 5:04 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTS
On 2022-03-28 13:52, Seymour J Metz wrote:
Personally, I wish that IBM had chosen ":=" for assignment.
You've forgotten that the basis for PL/I was an improved FORTRAN,
which used "="
Anyway, you can define your own assignment operator,
e.g. 'assigned_from', and use the preprocessor.
On 2022-03-28 15:58, Jay Maynard wrote:
Not me. Assignment is a much more common operation than comparison. It
should be the shorter token.
Agreed. '=' has been used for for assignment for 65 years.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 9:52 PM Seymour J Metz wrote:
Personally, I wish that IBM had
- Original Message -
From: "allan winston"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: PL/I question
From 1970 to 1972, I was in a shop that made the transition from PL/I F to
the PL/I optimizing compiler. I would frequently use the LIST
On 2022-03-28 02:45, Rupert Reynolds wrote:
Related: how does LE handle strings with embedded troublesome bytes
such as
x'00'? And is it different between PL/I and C?
Conventional strings in PL/I can contain any character.
VARYINGZ strings are terminated with a character X'00'.
I am reading
On 2022-03-28 02:45, Rupert Reynolds wrote:
Related: how does LE handle strings with embedded troublesome bytes
such as
x'00'? And is it different between PL/I and C?
Conventional strings in PL/I can contain any character.
VARYINGZ strings are terminated with a character X'00'.
I am reading
d the rest real,
came from FORTRAN, and while we're here, so did PL/I's
DEFAULT statement (from FORTRAN's IMPLICIT).
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on
behalf of Robin Vowels [robi...@dodo.com.au]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 20
Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on
behalf of Robin Vowels [robi...@dodo.com.au]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 4:53 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PL/I question
On 2022-03-28 19:10, Seymour J Metz wrote:
Exaclly, especially since Algol 60 was one of the three languages
to be tested.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 10:54 AM Robin Vowels
wrote:
On 2022-03-31 01:42, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> However, buffer overruns are characteristic of languages with no range
> checking. Of course, you can write C in PL/I with, e.g,
> (NOSTRINGRANGE) prefixes.
No, the appropriate
On 2022-03-31 01:42, Seymour J Metz wrote:
However, buffer overruns are characteristic of languages with no range
checking. Of course, you can write C in PL/I with, e.g,
(NOSTRINGRANGE) prefixes.
No, the appropriate condition is STRINGSIZE.
And that is disabled by default.
STRINGRANGE is
are not significant. In PL/I,
DO I=1.10; is still a DO statement, because spaces are not allowed
inside a variable name.
That is irrelevant to whether the DO statement in PL/I was taken
from FORTRAN.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on
behalf of Robin Vowels
Sent
On 2022-03-31 03:25, Seymour J Metz wrote:
Yes, range checking carries a performance penalty, and there have been
arguments in the past about performance versus safety. I'm in the camp
that believes that they should be enabled in any program where
incorrect output would cause a problem or where
On 2022-03-22 11:42, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 11:06:05 +1100, Robin Vowels wrote:
Notepad has a problem with large files.
It loads only the first part of a large file.
How large? No one should ever need more than 640K.
Rubbish.
On 2022-03-22 10:53, Bob Bridges wrote:
I
On 2022-03-29 17:42, Michael Stein wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:20:10AM +, Rupert Reynolds wrote:
Vaguely related, can anyone comment on the assertions that PL/I was
considered "too slow" back in the old days, and that it was "too
verbose
for writing system code"? Excuse me? MVS
e flaw in FORTRAN (which still exists)
by which a period instead of the first comma
changes the DO statement into an assignment statement.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on
behalf of Robin Vowels [robi...@dodo.com.au]
Sent:
Hi David,
Probably I have not read this article, but have seen discussions
about the mistake.
Do you have a specific reference to it? (I looked with google,
without success).
Thanks,
Robin
On 2022-03-30 00:22, David Spiegel wrote:
Hi Robin
You said: "... BTW, the change in format of the
On 2022-03-30 00:06, Seymour J Metz wrote:
It's obvious that one of us doesn't know what he's talking about,
And it's not me. Who does that leave?
especially as you cited things that don't even exist in PL/I as being
derived from FORTRAN.
Put up or shut up.
And you still haven't
Hi David,
I found this:-
A missing punctuation mark in a guidance equation led to a much greater
national embarrassment when
the rocket carrying the Mariner 1 space probe exploded shortly after
liftoff on July 22, 1962, in
what is widely believed to the most expensive typographical mistake of
From: "CM Poncelet" <03e99a92061c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 11:58 AM
AFAIK The reason PL/I was not 'more popular' was its high license fee.
There was an alternatve available, namely, PL/C.
Meanwhile, I've known
From: "Bob Bridges"
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 12:32 PM
License fee? I always assumed PL/I sort of came with the OS.
It did come with the OS, from the beginning.
I didn't think it'd be any extra
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
Oops, a typo. The PL/I Optimising and checkout compilers were available from
1970.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /
From: "Phil Smith III"
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 5:56 AM
My dad once told me that he'd seen a PL/I program in South America somewhere
in which the language itself was Spanish-the keywords etc. So "si" for "if"
(not to be confused with "yes"!) and "más hacer" for "else do", etc. I'm now
- Original Message -
From: "Seymour J Metz"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: PL/I question
You claimed that a lot of things came from FORTRAN that don'r look remotely
like FORTRAN syntax,
Name them.
some of which look
Please do not use this subject heading,
Please change it to what you are talking about.
On 2023-09-05 22:53, Bob Bridges wrote:
Hey, look at that! I never knew why the famous IEFBR14 was so named;
now I guess maybe I do, though I won't be guessing after I look up the
BR instruction).
There may have been issues with LCS (Large Core Storage).
Our site had 128K core with 1 Mb LCS.
OS/360 took up almost all the core storage.
Access to LCS was much slower than to core store.
We therefore made local PL/I variables static
(except for arrays, which typically had variable dimensions).
It's for this very reason that I still maintain at least
one computer with Windows 3.1 and Word 1.1a.
Everything works, including formulas.
And it came with a great manual.
As well as for preparing documents generally,
I used Word 1.1a for automatically preparing indexes for books.
Trying to
On 2022-05-30 20:33, Seymour J Metz wrote:
I've only seen a 407; did the boards for the other 40x machines have
the same form factor?
You could open the door an wire the board without removing it; I can't
imagine wanting to do so.
When a minor change was required to the wiring,
the could be
On 2022-05-29 01:53, Joe Monk wrote:
I also wanted to ask if anyone could share the proper 3 phase to single
phase wiring for the power cable...
What? Usually a transformer is required.
Three phase requires three wires.
If a neutral is available, a load can be
connected between the neutral
Try John Ehrman's Assembly Language Programming
On 2022-06-29 00:12, Colin Paice wrote:
I've been working on calling an (amode 31) assembler program from a 64
bit
C program, and have been struggling.Is there is a good guide on how to
use
these new instructions?
For example
1)
I've found you
On 2022-09-27 12:14, Hank Oerlemans wrote:
My extremely unhelpful advice ? Chuck them in the deep end !
When I was 20 my lovely German boss said write a channel program to
scan the CA-1 TMC for some criteria.
Many weeks later with BALR and USING and whatever and a hardcopy IPCS
manual it worked
I used an early version of Word for Windows for writing
a 1,000-page document. No mark-up language required.
It also produced automatically the index.
When I wanted to put more entries in the index,
it was a minute's work. Then press F8 and the entire index
was regenerated as a Word document
compiler, the EXECOPTS compile
option controls this.
It doesn't.
Read the manual.
What I wrote applies then EXECOPS is not used.
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 2:30 AM Robin Vowels
wrote:
The string passed to the main procedure needs to start with
a slash, because everything up to and including
The string passed to the main procedure needs to start with
a slash, because everything up to and including the slash
is omitted when passed.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
M: PROC (PARAM) OPTIONS (MAIN);
DECLARE PARAM CHARACTER(100) VARYING;
On 2022-11-20 17:20, Farley, Peter wrote:
It's been quite a long while since I had a finger in any PL1 code, but
I now have a small PL1 side project I need some help with.
I have a question about how to handle not only
On 2022-11-21 05:46, Farley, Peter wrote:
Thanks to all for the PL/I advice, and yes, I do know they changed the
name from 1 to I a long time ago,
The language has always been called PL/I, from IBM's first LRM
C28-6571.
(after, of course, from earlier temporary names such as NPL)
but I
four links are bad. jibberish is shown, like we are looking at
a character print of some binary file.
Cheers,
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On
Behalf Of
Robin Vowels
Sent: Monday, 20 March 2023 8:12 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PL/I Opt. Compiler
Except for the last, the links are incomplete.
On 2023-03-20 08:06, Peter Stockdill wrote:
https://publib.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/book/ibmop002.boo
https://publib.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/book/ibmol004.boo
https://publib.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/book/ibmom002.boo
The attribute BUILTIN can be used only for a name that is a built-in
function.
It overrides any prior declaration if the name as a variable or label
etc
in an outer block.
On 2023-11-16 05:33, Steve Beaver wrote:
BUILTIN is a way to tell the compiler that what ever something like
SUBSTR
BUILTIN is used when, for example, an identifier that is the same
as the name of a BUILT-IN function has been used as a variable.
Suppose that you want to use that built-in function in an inner block.
Then you declare it as BUILTIN.
E.G. declare sqrt builtin;
This overrides the declaration in
On 2023-11-18 03:38, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
Sorry for jumping in VERY late.
If you have something like
DCL X CHAR (6);
X = DATE;
then you will get strange results, because DATE is not recognized as
the
well-known builtin function DATE which returns the
current date. But instead it
On 2024-04-21 04:22, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 19:50:56 +0200, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
...
There are *no* reserved words in Rexx like in many other languages.
(This alleviates one to have to
learn them by heart. But more importantly, should the language get
additional
On 2024-04-21 15:38, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:58:18 -0500, Bruce Hewson wrote:
I use "cnt" for my loop counters. I stopped using FORTRAN style single
character variable names when I started coding in REXX.
I thought FORTRAN allowed six.
It did. Now it allows many
On 2024-04-24 00:41, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:07:05 +, Schmitt, Michael wrote:
Be sparse and elegant but not rococo. I prefer:
'A' B
to (the equivalent):
'A ' || B
The latter seems to cater to the expectations of PL/I or some other
language.
Catenation with
On 2024-04-22 00:05, Seymour J Metz wrote:
While PL/I has no reserved words, it is considered bad form to use a
keyword as an entry or variable name. The same principle applies to
Rexx; using, e.g., DO, ELSE, END, EXIT, IF, ITERATE, OTHERWISE,
PROCEDURE, THEN, WHEN, as a variable name can make
On 2024-04-22 02:13, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 01:52:14 +1000, Robin Vowels wrote:o
...
One would not use as variable such common keywords as mentioned above.
The real advantage is that one doesn't need to keep in mind
all those uncommonly-used words that might be used
95 matches
Mail list logo
