True, but it's convenient to be able to write things like "foo := sine(bar :=
baz);".
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Jay
Maynard [jaymayn...@gmail.com]
Exaclly, especially since Algol 60 was one of the three languages folded into
PL/I.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
David Spiegel [dspiegel...@hotmail.c
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 chose
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 lists.
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.
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 cha
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
Yes, I meant VARYINGZ. Zero termination, no interpolation, the normal doubling
in literals.
Block entry *is* run time. Also, exempli gratia (e.g.) means for example; had
that been a complete list I would have written id est (i.e.).
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
- 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 20:26, Seymour J Metz wrote:
Yes, I meant VARYINGZ. Zero termination, no interpolation, the normal
doubling in literals.
Block entry *is* run time.
I know. That's why I wrote "explicitly determined at run time".
I was referring to ALLOCATE.
Also, exempli gratia (e.g.) means fo
I'm fully aware of the initial name; the fact remains that IBM and SHARE looked
at three languages, and that FORTRAN had the least influence of the three. Most
of the language derives from Algol 60 and COBOL, and the most obvious feature
from FORTRAN has gone by the wayside.
--
Shmuel (Seymour
No.
"I meant what I said and I said what I meant,
A SysProg is faithful, 100%."
("Horton Hears an IPL", Dr. Seus)
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Robin
Nonsense, that's only one case of a length explicitly determined at run time..
A declaration of an AUTO CHAR(foo) variable is another case.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA
In PL/I (F) Version 5 the optimization regressed. While SUBSTR was still inline
for CHAR, that was not always the case for bit strings.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
On 2022-03-28 20:43, Seymour J Metz wrote:
I'm fully aware of the initial name; the fact remains that IBM and
SHARE looked at three languages, and that FORTRAN had the least
influence of the three.
Static storage came from FORTRAN.
Edited input-output (format lists) came from FORTRAN.
EXTERNAL
Hi Robin,
You said: "... These new features were introduced in PL/I: ..."
Pseudo-variables (i.e. SUBSTR, UNSPEC), Source Margins (not exactly the
language itself).
Regards,
David
On 2022-03-28 06:26, Robin Vowels wrote:
On 2022-03-28 20:43, Seymour J Metz wrote:
I'm fully aware of the initia
Oddly enough, you listed lots of bogus claims but forgot one that is
legitimate: the default attributes depending on variable names. Of course, in
FORTRAN it's wired in, but the original PL/I defaults matched FORTRAN.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
__
On 2022-03-28 22:38, Seymour J Metz wrote:
Oddly enough, you listed lots of bogus claims
There are no bogus claims.
but forgot one that is
legitimate: the default attributes depending on variable names. Of
course, in FORTRAN it's wired in, but the original PL/I defaults
matched FORTRAN.
I
I wasn't actually talking about using a symbol (as in system symbol)... but
referring to the unix command create symbolic link.
ln -s [OPTIONS] FILE LINK
and that is why I was proposing a SYMLINK. but I am not tied to the name
if it causes confusion. ALIASLINK works.. or something like it.
I a
On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 10:36:42 -0400, Rob Schramm wrote:
>I wasn't actually talking about using a symbol (as in system symbol)... but
>referring to the unix command create symbolic link.
>ln -s [OPTIONS] FILE LINK
>...
>I am much more interested in the underlying functionality and
>creating so
I understood exactly what you were asking for, and I explained why I expected
that IBM would not be receptive to an RFE. Back in the CVOL era there was
somewhat of an analogy between index levels and Unix directories, but things
are different with VSAM catalog. The whole inode thing doesn't exis
He's looking for an alias without the restriction of being in the same catalog.
That would be useful for people who haven't set things up to exploit
SYMBOLICRELATE, but I doubt that IBM will be willing to do it.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on be
On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:27:22 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>He's looking for an alias without the restriction of being in the same
>catalog.
>
What's wrong with SYMBOLICRELATE?
>That would be useful for people who haven't set things up to exploit
>SYMBOLICRELATE, but I doubt that IBM will be w
Thanks for the hints folks suggested. It turns out that the PL/I
preprocessor does make this easy, via something like:
%Dcl Forn Char;
%if Uppercase(Dyn) = 'YES' %then %do ;
%Forn = ', fetchable';
%end;
%else %do;
%Forn = '';
%end;
Then you just include the Forn variable in the f
I don't know what technical reasons there are for restricting an alias to
be in the same catalog as its target, but they would certainly be much
more powerful if they weren't. It would also be nice to have symlinks that
could point at MVS datasets, and aliases that pointed at USS files.
I don't
On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:34:41 -0400, Steve Smith wrote:
>I don't know what technical reasons there are for restricting an alias to
>be in the same catalog as its target, but they would certainly be much
>more powerful if they weren't. It would also be nice to have symlinks that
>could point at M
While evaluating SMF 30 data for one customer found few address spaces
being reported with the SMF30_USERKEYCSAUSAGE bit on. Below are few
examples :
1)INIT address spaces program IEFIIC (SMF30 subtype 4 step records)
2)DB2 MSTR , IRLM , DBM1 address spaces.
3)MSTJCL00 ad program IEEMB860.(SMF30
Is this customer running back-level software? Some very old Omegamon
versions had user key CSA from my memory, and that could explain the
otherwise strange mix of address spaces you are reporting. Lots of other
old software also used user key CSA (hence why IBM provided the RUCSA
feature as a sol
Hi Gil,
You asked why SYMBOLICRELATE doesn't work. At my site at least, SYM doesn't
work because it drops the alias entry into the same catalog as the base entry,
regardless of what catalog the HLQ should be putting the alias into. Just for
fun I defined a symbolic called &NULL and IPLed my s
On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:39:12 +, Pommier, Rex wrote:
>
>... Just for fun I defined a symbolic called &NULL and IPLed my sandbox
> resulting in (in part) this:
>
>IEA007I STATIC SYSTEM SYMBOL VALUES 045
> &NULL. = ""
>
>I then defined a new SYM alias:
>
> DEF A
You claimed that a lot of things came from FORTRAN that don'r look remotely
like FORTRAN syntax, some of which look like Algol 60. A good example is the DO
statement, which looks a lot more like an Algol for statement than a FORTRAN
DO. Some of what you claimed came from FORTRAN doesn't even exi
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
susp
- 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 like
On 3/27/22 10:11 PM, Brian Westerman wrote:
I think you could probably learn "how" to make your product on the LE
edition and if things start working out for you and you think you might
have a viable product, you could then switch to the personal edition.
That seems like you could potentially
If you are doing any coding to learn, that is going to be OK.
If you happen to code anything that is useful to run on your
employer's mainframe, it probably won't be detected since it would
fall under site written software.
If you try to sell to any non-employer company they are probably going
to
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 system macros are stuffed with its
> close rel
37 matches
Mail list logo
