I'm not going to mention all of them, but you obviously noticed that I mentioned DO.
Are you seriously claiming that "DO K = 1 TO 10 BY 2;" looks more like "DO 10 K = 1, 10, 2 " than it does like "for K := 1 step 2 until 10 do"? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of Robin Vowels [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 8:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PL/I question ----- Original Message ----- From: "Seymour J Metz" <[email protected]> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: <[email protected]> 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 Algol 60. A good example is the DO statement, > which looks a lot more like an Algol for statement than a FORTRAN DO. Try DO 10 K = 1, 10 -> DO K = 1 TO 10; DO 10 K = 1, 10, 2 -> DO K = 1 TO 10 BY 2; > Some of what you claimed came from FORTRAN doesn't even exist in PL/I. Name them. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fantivirus&data=04%7C01%7Csmetz3%40gmu.edu%7C8bfbe5e390994dbbf76608da111d69c6%7C9e857255df574c47a0c00546460380cb%7C0%7C0%7C637841115292073877%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=GbJRwuudlJjyfHA2afrnyQs5AwmZPoIpN%2BZeesulU54%3D&reserved=0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
