I've been reading quietly and wondering how the dialog drifted off to rexx
and pl1 land. Can we get back on topic? Thanks
On Oct 23, 2013 7:43 PM, "Paul Gilmartin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2013-10-23 17:26, robin wrote:
> >
> >> In Rexx, this could be written with no (explicit) branches
> >> as:
> >>
> >> m = ( j > k ) - ( j < k );
> >
> > In PL/I,
> > m = sign(j-k);
> >
> The objective was to synthesize sign() in a language such as
> Rexx which, unlike PL/I, lacks it. I have occasionally gotten
> flamboyant and coded such as:
>
> X = copies( 'gubbins', A==B ) /* instead of: */
>
> if A==B
> then X = 'gubbins'
> else X = ''
>
> Clearly, I've been polluted by excessive exposure to CDC 6600,
> whose programmers went to extremes to avoid branches which
> might break pipelining.
>
>
> On 2013-10-23 15:09, John Gilmore wrote:
> > Boolean values are bits in PL/I.
> > ...
> > but nothing quite like your REXX construct is available.
> >
> IOW, PL/I provides no coercion from boolean (bit) values to
> integer?
>
> ("[my] REXX construct"? It's conventional; I lay no claim
> to originality.)
>
> --- gil
>
