-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Seymour J Metz
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 2:05 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL
COND Parameter)
I hope that he meant 2**X
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Clark Morris
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 4:37 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL COND
Parameter)
[Default] On 18 Jul 2019 09:42:13 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm
y 18, 2019 3:38 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL COND
Parameter)
[Default] On 18 Jul 2019 09:42:13 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (Paul Gilmartin) wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jul
[Default] On 18 Jul 2019 09:42:13 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (Paul Gilmartin) wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 19:22:51 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>>
>>The cardinal sin in language design is to make the compiler simpler at the
>>expense of the
rame Discussion List on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 1:28 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL COND
Parameter)
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:51:57 +, Seymour
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 1:28 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL COND
Par
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:51:57 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>OOREXX now allows the equivalent of expressions in tails:
>
> stem[tail expression]
>
What are those strange characters, "[" and "]"? What are their EBCDIC code
points?
>If X is a floating point (REAL) variable, why shouldn't x**(-1)
://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Bernd Oppolzer
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 5:59 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL COND
Parameter)
Am 17.07.2019 um 19:54
List on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 12:41 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL COND
Parameter)
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 19:22:51 +, Seymour J Metz
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 19:22:51 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>
>The cardinal sin in language design is to make the compiler simpler at the
>expense of the user. ...
>
I see a notable example of this in Rexx's not supporting expressions in compound
symbol tails which some have justified as making
On 7/17/19 9:55 AM, David Crayford wrote:
On 2019-07-16 4:44 AM, Tom Marchant wrote:
Some C programmers are fond of if (7 == foo) rather than the more
conventional if (foo == 7) because if one gets in the habit of doing
so and then accidentally codes if (7 = foo) one gets a compile error
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 23:59:04 +0200, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
>
>One program had a coding like this:
>
> IF 9 < ZZ < 20 THEN DO;
> ...
There's an argument here for strong typing, prohibiting comparing
a boolean to a numeric without a cast.
> ... Obviously this is not what the coder intended;
Am 17.07.2019 um 19:54 schrieb Paul Gilmartin:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:22:35 -0400, Steve Smith wrote:
The original sin was making "=" the assignment operator. I guess we can
blame that on FORTRAN, and it must make mathematicians cringe still.
I once (ca. 1967) needed to enlighten and
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:22:35 -0400, Steve Smith wrote:
>The original sin was making "=" the assignment operator. I guess we can
>blame that on FORTRAN, and it must make mathematicians cringe still.
>
I once (ca. 1967) needed to enlighten and disillusion a naive
but persistent physics graduate
-
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
>
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf
> of John McKown
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 12:50 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Where put t
McKown
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 12:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL COND
Parameter)
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:23 AM Steve Smith wrote:
> The original sin was making "=" the assignment operator. I guess w
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:23 AM Steve Smith wrote:
> The original sin was making "=" the assignment operator. I guess we can
> blame that on FORTRAN, and it must make mathematicians cringe still.
>
I haven't said anything, but I think you're correct. Of course, in the "bad
old days" of punch
.ua.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 4:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL COND
Parameter)
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 21:37:38 +0200, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
>Am 16.07.2019 um 21:22 schrieb Seymour J Metz:
>>> Furthermore:
The original sin was making "=" the assignment operator. I guess we can
blame that on FORTRAN, and it must make mathematicians cringe still.
sas
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
On 2019-07-16 4:44 AM, Tom Marchant wrote:
Some C programmers are fond of if (7 == foo) rather than the more conventional
if (foo == 7) because if one gets in the habit of doing so and then
accidentally codes if (7 = foo) one gets a compile error rather than unexpected
behavior.
For those
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_MicroEngine
In a message dated 7/16/2019 6:02:25 PM Central Standard Time,
bernd.oppol...@t-online.de writes:
and Pascal :-)
Pascal makes the same difference between := (assignment) and = (comparison)
So does C.
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:36:43 +0200, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
>>>
>>> I added BREAK, CONTINUE, RETURN, MODULE, LOCAL and STATIC;
>>> this was in the years from 2011 to 2016. No more need since.
>>>
>> I've done many of these as predefined quasi-identifiers, similar to Pascal's
>> predefined standard
Am 16.07.2019 um 22:16 schrieb Paul Gilmartin:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 21:37:38 +0200, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
Am 16.07.2019 um 21:22 schrieb Seymour J Metz:
Furthermore: the more modern languages like Pascal, C and Java etc.
forbid the use of reserved symbols as variable names. This may be
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 21:37:38 +0200, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
>Am 16.07.2019 um 21:22 schrieb Seymour J Metz:
>>> Furthermore: the more modern languages like Pascal, C and Java etc.
>>> forbid the use of reserved symbols as variable names. This may be
>>> restrictive, but makes the compilers much
Am 16.07.2019 um 21:22 schrieb Seymour J Metz:
Furthermore: the more modern languages like Pascal, C and Java etc.
forbid the use of reserved symbols as variable names. This may be
restrictive, but makes the compilers much much simpler.
The cardinal sin in language design is to make the
u/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Bernd Oppolzer
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 3:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL COND
Parameter)
Space is permitted almost everywhere in PL/1,
not in the middle of id
Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL COND
Parameter)
This double meaning of =, together with the absence of reserved words
makes PL/1 parsing extremely hard. Consider for example
IF (1) = (2);
now what does that mean?
Given a declaration
DCL IF (25) BIN FIXED (31
uly 16, 2019 2:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL COND
Parameter)
Am 16.07.2019 um 20:40 schrieb Seymour J Metz:
>> Pascal makes the same difference between := (assignment) and = (comparison)
> Pascal is a castr
Am 16.07.2019 um 20:40 schrieb Seymour J Metz:
Pascal makes the same difference between := (assignment) and = (comparison)
Pascal is a castrated version of Algol 60,
Hmmm ... the only feature that Pascal lacks IMO is call-by-name,
but this is something not easy to understand (and explain) to
List on behalf of
> Tom Marchant <000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 4:44 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL COND
> Parameter)
>
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:3
.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Bernd Oppolzer
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 2:22 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL
tserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 4:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL COND
Parameter)
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:30:51 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
Some C programmers are fond of if (7 == foo) rather than the more c
This double meaning of =, together with the absence of reserved words
makes PL/1 parsing extremely hard. Consider for example
IF (1) = (2);
now what does that mean?
Given a declaration
DCL IF (25) BIN FIXED (31);
that is, if IF is an array of integers, the "IF" statement above is a
valid
ur J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Tom
Marchant <000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 4:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where put the notional consta
Of Tom Marchant
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 1:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where put the notional constant in a condition (Was RE: JCL COND
Parameter)
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:30:51 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Some C programmers are fond of if (7 == foo) rather than the m
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:30:51 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Some C programmers are fond of if (7 == foo) rather than the more conventional
>if (foo == 7) because if one gets in the habit of doing so and then
>accidentally codes if (7 = foo) one gets a compile error rather than
>unexpected
36 matches
Mail list logo
