Re: Evolution of PL/I
- From: Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:30:03 GMT
robin wrote:
.... various others quoted here ...
you use it.FOREVER adds no functioanlity to the language other than creating a
synonym of sorts. The parser doen't need to be extended to support it
To an extent, that's true, but then you lose the requirement that
no words are reserved, and once 'FOREVER' or any other
such word is set up that way, it cannot be used as an identifier.
I've mostly avoided this discussion, but FOREVER in this context is a keyword like any other PL/I keyword and need no be reserved. If the syntax was "DO WHILE(FOREVER);" you'd have a problem.
Having just implemented DO ...BY <expression> when the <expression> is not a constant, I can see where UPTHRU and DOWNTHRU can save a fair amount of code. If the programmer knows which way the loop is running (as s/he usually does) this keeps the compiler from having to check the sign of the BY expression each time thru the loop to determine which of two jump instructions to execute to exit the loop.Do you like UPTHRU?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Evolution of PL/I
- From: robin
- Re: Evolution of PL/I
- From: glen herrmannsfeldt
- Re: LOOP CONTROL (was: Evolution of PL/I)
- From: robin
- Re: Evolution of PL/I
- From: glen herrmannsfeldt
- Re: Evolution of PL/I
- From: Tom Linden
- Re: Evolution of PL/I
- References:
- Re: Evolution of PL/I
- From: robin
- Re: Evolution of PL/I
- Prev by Date: Re: PL/I net bean
- Next by Date: Re: Evolution of PL/I
- Previous by thread: Re: Evolution of PL/I
- Next by thread: Re: Evolution of PL/I
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|