Whoosh! In this case it walks like a dog, purrs like a cat and is definitely not a duck.
Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. You seem to be willfully ignoring what I actually wrote as well. I made specific claims and specific contexts and you seem to be criticizing claims that I never made, yet again. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of Robin Vowels [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 12:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PL/I question On 2022-03-31 02:38, Seymour J Metz wrote: >> Who does that leave? > > The obvious; your claim is untrue and it is you. Looks like you have egg on your face again. >> Put up or shut up. > > PL/I does not have computed GO TO. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Try: GO TO X(I); X(1): A = B; ... X(2): A = C; ... X(3): A = D; ... and try: GOTO (1, 2, 3), K 1 A = B ... 2 A = B ... 3 A = C ... Guess which one is FORTRAN and which is PL/I. > It has LABEL arrays, which are more > useful. There may be cases where a computed GO TO would be clearer if > it exiasted, but good or bad, PL/I doesn't have it. >> Read what I wrote. > > I did; it's BS. More egg on your face. >> White space has noting to do with it. > > That's a perfect example of BS. In FORTRAN, DO 500 I=1.10 is an > assignment statement because the blanks are not significant. In PL/I, > DO I=1.10; is still a DO statement, because spaces are not allowed > inside a variable name. That is irrelevant to whether the DO statement in PL/I was taken from FORTRAN. > ________________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on > behalf of Robin Vowels <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 9:51 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: PL/I question > > On 2022-03-30 00:06, Seymour J Metz wrote: >> It's obvious that one of us doesn't know what he's talking about, > > And it's not me. Who does that leave? > >> especially as you cited things that don't even exist in PL/I as being >> derived from FORTRAN. > > Put up or shut up. > >> 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. > > Read what I wrote. > >> 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. > > White space has noting to do with it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
