Kids, kids...take it outside. Or at least to a thread that can be ignored. Some of us are interested in the original question.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:58 PM Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
