I don't think you are really interested in how a qsort-like procedure is implemented in PL/I, and I am not at all open-minded about the relative merits of C and PL/I.
I do, however, want to make one final comment on your last post. Compile-time binding is not a 'trick'. It is preferable to execution-time binding when it meets the requirements of a situation. That said, our differences are visceral, not intellectual; further exchanges between us will not clarify any issue; they would only produce more acrimony. I shall try to avoid you here on IBM-MAIN, but that may not always be possible if we both contribute to a thread. I have put you on my kill list so that I will not see your posts unless they are part of a thread to which I have already contributed or quoted by someone else; and that should help. Good luck! On 8/2/13, David Crayford <dcrayf...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/08/2013 11:47 PM, John Gilmore wrote: >> As it happens a PL/I generic statement can distinguish the two sorting >> schemes in the example you cite very readily. The first has two >> arguments, the second three, so that, simplistically, >> >> declare generic_sort generic(sort1 when(*,*), sort2 when(*,*,*)) ; >> >> does the job at compile time. (It can be done at execution time too, >> but this is not the place for an explication of how.) > > I'm not interested in compile time tricks. How would you code the > equivilent of the C qsort() function in PL/I? > Does the PL/I runtime even have such a function? > >> Your catholic taste in statement-level languages is admirable, much >> less parochial than mine: I have never been able to include COBOL >> among the languages I approve. I have, for my sins, had to confront a >> good deal of it; but close acquaintance has not made me fonder of it. >> What must be conceded is that the post-CODASYL language is improving. >> It is useful to have substrings even if one must call them reference >> modifications. > > I made good money coding COBOL in the 90s so I approve of it. I write > code to put food on the table not for religious reasons. > I would rather be employed writing code in a language I dislike instead > of unemployed coding for fun. The more languages I > can master the more strings to my bow. Adaptability is important in the > software industry. > >> >> John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
