A pedantic compiler would not flag code that violated no rules. Paranoid compilers might flag the FORTRAN "DO 500 I=1.10" and the PL/I "DO I=1.10" as possibly unintended, but pedantic compilers would quietly accept both. Note that only the FORTRAN is an assignment statement.
________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 10:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PL/I question On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 09:22:10 -0400, David Spiegel wrote: > >You said: "... 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. ..." > Do pedantic compilers warn of that? But it might be inicidental to warning of unused variables. Most languages have such pitfalls. A favorite is the ALGOL-60 implied comment. Pedantic compilers warn of that. >Have you ever read the Datamation article regarding the comma which cost >$15,00,000 (in the '60s)? > Did you just supply an example ("$15,00.000")? If not, cite. In IT or in law? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
