It's obvious that one of us doesn't know what he's talking about, especially as you cited things that don't even exist in PL/I as being derived from FORTRAN. And you still haven't answered whether you seriouslyu believe thaat the FORTRAN DO resembles the PL/I DO more than the ALGOL FOR statement does.
Your purported explanation of the difference in DO between FORTRAN and PL/I is ludicrous, because the rules for "white spacew" in FORTRAN and PL/I are very different. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of Robin Vowels [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 8:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PL/I question On 2022-03-29 22:46, Seymour J Metz wrote: > I'm not going to mention all of them, but you obviously noticed that I > mentioned DO. Then, it's obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. > 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"? Given that the PL/I language was derived from FORTRAN IV, and that the name of the language was FORTRAN VI, it is reasonable to assert that the PL/I version was derived from FORTRAN IV, and that the keyword 'TO' was only required to be added to the short form, and 'TO' and 'BY' to be added to the long form. PL/I went a lot further than FORTRAN IV: for example, multiple iterations were added, and, for example, the 'TO' component could be omitted. BTW, the change in format of the DO was essential in preventing the flaw in FORTRAN (which still exists) by which a period instead of the first comma changes the DO statement into an assignment statement. > ________________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on > behalf of Robin Vowels [[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 8:45 PM > 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
