Translators---compilers and assemblers---are usually most comfortable with FB source-language card-image inputs.
There is much to be said for supporting VB input, since the chief determinant of a translator's performance is the facility and rapidity with which it eliminates insignificant blanks from source-language statements. (A minimal alternative would be to supply an exit, as does the HLASM, that makes it possible to reformat inputs of other sorts into FB ones.) If I were the deity symbol-table management would be more important than blank suppression; but, as John Cocke showed conclusively, this is not the case. It is almost a law of nature that intellectually interesting problems turn out in the end to be practicallly less important than humdrum housekeeping issues. --jg On 10/6/12, Ed Gould <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 6, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >> ----------------SNIP------------------- >> For the ultimate irony, did the FORTRAN compiler source code >> input with RECFM=VBS? >> >> -- gil >> > Gil: > The G1 compiler needed FB (80) I never got to tinker with the WatIV > as the project never needed the compiler so it was ordered and > installed but essentially never used other than a few trials and error . > I think (if memory serves me) the G1 did not like terminal I/O very > well (it worked but was found wanting). > The TESTFORT command was $$ but was needed and I suppose we could > have dropped it but debugging was a semi ongoing issue. > > Ed > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
