Re: PL/I integers (was: Constant Identifiers)

2020-09-07 Thread Seymour J Metz
What release of what compiler. I remember when IBM changed the default for 
FIXED BIN from  (31,0) to (15,0) in order to eliminate some annoying anomalies 
that didn't occur in 
FORTRAN. Of course, back in those days there were fewer compiler options to 
muddy the waters.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of Bob 
Bridges 
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 10:48 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PL/I integers (was: Constant Identifiers)

All of this is really fascinating (and no, I'm not being facetious):  A
bunch of apparently knowledgeable PL/1 programmers cannot agree on a point
that would seem to have a single indisputable answer.  Rather than keep on
saying "yes it is" / "no it isn't", couldn't one or two of you from both
sides run a program demonstrating your claim?  It would probably be
necessary to define the compiler you're running, too.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* Oh good.  Now he'll be bi-ignorant.  -Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim
Hightower when told that Texas Governor Bill Clements had been studying
Spanish */

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


Re: PL/I integers (was: Constant Identifiers)

2020-09-07 Thread Bob Bridges
All of this is really fascinating (and no, I'm not being facetious):  A
bunch of apparently knowledgeable PL/1 programmers cannot agree on a point
that would seem to have a single indisputable answer.  Rather than keep on
saying "yes it is" / "no it isn't", couldn't one or two of you from both
sides run a program demonstrating your claim?  It would probably be
necessary to define the compiler you're running, too.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* Oh good.  Now he'll be bi-ignorant.  -Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim
Hightower when told that Texas Governor Bill Clements had been studying
Spanish */

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


Re: PL/I integers (was: Constant Identifiers)

2020-09-07 Thread Joe Monk
"DECLARE (I, J) FIXED DECIMAL (15);
I = 4; J = 3;
PUT ((I/J*J));"

Well, just doing the math, that should give an answer of 4.

4/3 * 3/1 = 4/1 = 4 ...

Joe

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 9:15 AM Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> Did you read what I wrote? The code you wrote has nothing to do with the
> expression I gave.  How about
>
> DECLARE (I, J) FIXED DECIMAL (15);
> I = 4; J = 3;
> PUT ((I/J*J));
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf
> of Robin Vowels 
> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 5:49 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: PL/I integers (was: Constant Identifiers)
>
> On 2020-09-07 16:13, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> > PL/I has never had integers.
>
> You are still wrong.
>
> Recently you have made numerous erroneous claims about PL/I.
>
> 4 is an integer in PL/I.
> 3 is an integer in PL/I.
>
> > The arithmetic rules for scaled fixed
> > point are different from those for integers.
>
> Scaled, with a scale factor other than zero and with
> a fractional part, yes, because they are not then integers.
> However, with scale factor of zero, they are integers.
>
> > In integer arithmetic,
> > (4/3)*6 is 6 That's not the result you get in PL/I.
>
> With the following declarations, you'll get the same
> result in PL/I, namely, 6:
> DECLARE (I, J) FIXED DECIMAL (15);
> I = 4; J = 3;
> PUT (I/J);
> will print 6
>
> > 
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on
> > behalf of Robin Vowels 
> > Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2020 7:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: Constant Identifiers
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Seymour J Metz" 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Monday, September 07, 2020 5:33 AM
> >
> >
> >> PL/I doesn't have integers.
> >
> > PL/I has always had integers.
> >
> >> The ratiio 4/3 is FIXED BIN,
> >
> > No it not.  It is FIXED DECIMAL -- as I said a few days ago.
> > And it hasn't changed since.
> >
> >> with some number of bits after the binary point.
> >
> > DECIMAL digits after the decimal point, because the result
> > is FIXED DECIMAL, not binary.
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


Re: PL/I integers (was: Constant Identifiers)

2020-09-07 Thread Seymour J Metz
Did you read what I wrote? The code you wrote has nothing to do with the 
expression I gave.  How about

DECLARE (I, J) FIXED DECIMAL (15);
I = 4; J = 3;
PUT ((I/J*J));


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Robin Vowels 
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 5:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PL/I integers (was: Constant Identifiers)

On 2020-09-07 16:13, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> PL/I has never had integers.

You are still wrong.

Recently you have made numerous erroneous claims about PL/I.

4 is an integer in PL/I.
3 is an integer in PL/I.

> The arithmetic rules for scaled fixed
> point are different from those for integers.

Scaled, with a scale factor other than zero and with
a fractional part, yes, because they are not then integers.
However, with scale factor of zero, they are integers.

> In integer arithmetic,
> (4/3)*6 is 6 That's not the result you get in PL/I.

With the following declarations, you'll get the same
result in PL/I, namely, 6:
DECLARE (I, J) FIXED DECIMAL (15);
I = 4; J = 3;
PUT (I/J);
will print 6

> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on
> behalf of Robin Vowels 
> Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2020 7:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Constant Identifiers
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Seymour J Metz" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, September 07, 2020 5:33 AM
>
>
>> PL/I doesn't have integers.
>
> PL/I has always had integers.
>
>> The ratiio 4/3 is FIXED BIN,
>
> No it not.  It is FIXED DECIMAL -- as I said a few days ago.
> And it hasn't changed since.
>
>> with some number of bits after the binary point.
>
> DECIMAL digits after the decimal point, because the result
> is FIXED DECIMAL, not binary.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


Re: PL/I integers (was: Constant Identifiers)

2020-09-07 Thread Robin Vowels

On 2020-09-07 16:13, Seymour J Metz wrote:

PL/I has never had integers.


You are still wrong.

Recently you have made numerous erroneous claims about PL/I.

4 is an integer in PL/I.
3 is an integer in PL/I.


The arithmetic rules for scaled fixed
point are different from those for integers.


Scaled, with a scale factor other than zero and with
a fractional part, yes, because they are not then integers.
However, with scale factor of zero, they are integers.


In integer arithmetic,
(4/3)*6 is 6 That's not the result you get in PL/I.


With the following declarations, you'll get the same
result in PL/I, namely, 6:
DECLARE (I, J) FIXED DECIMAL (15);
I = 4; J = 3;
PUT (I/J);
will print 6



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on
behalf of Robin Vowels 
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2020 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Constant Identifiers

- Original Message -
From: "Seymour J Metz" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2020 5:33 AM



PL/I doesn't have integers.


PL/I has always had integers.


The ratiio 4/3 is FIXED BIN,


No it not.  It is FIXED DECIMAL -- as I said a few days ago.
And it hasn't changed since.


with some number of bits after the binary point.


DECIMAL digits after the decimal point, because the result
is FIXED DECIMAL, not binary.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN