(IBM) SHARE - LNGC requirements

I hope to have a number (many) SHARE LNGC requirements "Open for Discussion"
 in
the next few days (certainly by the end of next w).  If your "site" is a
SHARE member and you are not currently participating in the requirement proc
ess
for:

COBOL
PL/I
and/or
LE  (Language Environment)

Please read and follow the information at:
http://home.netcom.com/~wmklein/IBM...%20-%20LNGC.htm

If you have already "registered" to participate in this (electronic only) me
thod
of influencing the future of these IBM products, please make certain that yo
u
"watch" the SHARE requirements website for new items for which your input is
being solicited.

SPECIAL NOTE:
Although I will be entering a number of requirements (based on what I have
heard as current needs/desires), creating and submitting requirements is ope
n to
ALL share member organizations and I would really, REALLY appreciate as many
others creating new requirements as possible.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

These bloody-obvious PL/I requirements have been around for years:

Distinct binary and short-circuit logical operators (cf. C, Ada....).
Polymorphic objects and private information (cf. C++, Java).
INTEGER as a tertium-quid to FIXED and FLOAT (cf. Ada).
Overloading (as opposed to the lame GENERIC feature).
Although the macro language can be used to achieve templating, a true
templating feature would be better.
Assuming these, a set of collection classes would be good, too.

--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams.  "Judgement at Chelmsford"

To which you could add classes / objects, which is even partially supported
although totally undocumented in IBM's VA compilers. AFAIK, it has some of
the expected functionality, but is missing other features. Moreover it
apparently does not use a C++ / COM-compatible dispatch table, thus
preventing C++ / COM interoperability.

Currently, fixed bin and integer is even messier than you seem to realize:
Under rules(ibm), fixed binary can be scaled, but under rules(ans), fixed
binary is exactly integer, as non-zero scale factors are not permitted (see
the Programming Guide).

"John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yxN4c.20487$Sp2.6467465@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> These bloody-obvious PL/I requirements have been around for years:
>
> Distinct binary and short-circuit logical operators (cf. C, Ada....).
> Polymorphic objects and private information (cf. C++, Java).
> INTEGER as a tertium-quid to FIXED and FLOAT (cf. Ada).
> Overloading (as opposed to the lame GENERIC feature).
> Although the macro language can be used to achieve templating, a true
> templating feature would be better.
> Assuming these, a set of collection classes would be good, too.
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
> "But now is a new thing which is very old--
> that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
> which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
>    -- Charles Williams.  "Judgement at Chelmsford"

"Mark Yudkin" <myudkinATcompuserveDOTcom@nospam.org> wrote in message news:<c31cg2$e4v$1@ng
spool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> To which you could add classes / objects, which is even partially supporte
d
> although totally undocumented in IBM's VA compilers. AFAIK, it has some of
> the expected functionality, but is missing other features. Moreover it
> apparently does not use a C++ / COM-compatible dispatch table, thus
> preventing C++ / COM interoperability.
>
> Currently, fixed bin and integer is even messier than you seem to realize:
> Under rules(ibm), fixed binary can be scaled, but under rules(ans), fixed
> binary is exactly integer, as non-zero scale factors are not permitted (se
e
> the Programming Guide).

In that event IBM shouldn't call it ANS(I)  since ANSI does support
scaled fixed binary.

see
http://www.kednos.com/pli/docs/REFE...tml#index_x_336

>
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:yxN4c.20487$Sp2.6467465@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net... 

Mark Yudkin wrote:
> To which you could add classes / objects, which is even partially supporte
d
> although totally undocumented in IBM's VA compilers. AFAIK, it has some of
> the expected functionality, but is missing other features. Moreover it
> apparently does not use a C++ / COM-compatible dispatch table, thus
> preventing C++ / COM interoperability.

I supposed I had covered that when I asked for polymorphic objects.  The
rest is -- interesting.

> Currently, fixed bin and integer is even messier than you seem to realize:
> Under rules(ibm), fixed binary can be scaled, but under rules(ans), fixed
> binary is exactly integer, as non-zero scale factors are not permitted (se
e
> the Programming Guide).

As far as I'm concerned RULES(ANS) PL/I isn't PL/I (as the Indian sage
famously remarked on the subject of Chinese Buddhism).

--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams.  "Judgement at Chelmsford"

Tom Linden wrote:
> "Mark Yudkin" <myudkinATcompuserveDOTcom@nospam.org> wrote in message news
:<c31cg2$e4v$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> 
>
>
> In that event IBM shouldn't call it ANS(I)  since ANSI does support
> scaled fixed binary.
>
> see
> [url]http://www.kednos.com/pli/docs/REFERENCE_MANUAL/6291pro_007.html#index_x_336[/ur
l]
>

ANSI Subset G doesn't support it.  AFAIK, full ANSI still does.

IBM PL/I has a lot of non-standard extensions, however.

In <yxN4c.20487$Sp2.6467465@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, on 03/14/2004
at 12:18 AM, "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> said:

>Polymorphic objects and private information (cf. C++, Java).

What ever happened to IBM's pilot project for OO PL/I?

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Unsolicited bulk E-mail will be subject to legal action.  I reserve
the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.

Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do
not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

From: "Mark Yudkin" <myudkinATcompuserveDOTcom@nospam.org>, CompuServe Inter
active Services
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 11:35:38 +0100
.
| Currently, fixed bin and integer is even messier than you seem to realize:
| Under rules(ibm), fixed binary can be scaled,
.
Not really.  Try using the ADD, SUBTRACT, MULTIPLY, DIVIDE
builtins.  They force conversion to FIXED DECIMAL,
which is a real pain.
.
| but under rules(ans), fixed
| binary is exactly integer, as non-zero scale factors are not permitted (se
e
| the Programming Guide).
.
and the Language Reference.

robin wrote:
> From: "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net>, Optimum Online
> | INTEGER as a tertium-quid to FIXED and FLOAT (cf. Ada).
> ..
> Already available as a subset of FIXED BINARY under RULES (ANSI)

Which means changing ALL semantics by changing a compiler option, and,
to get one desideratum, ruling out another.  No thank you.

> Already available virtually anyway with the fllg (RULES (IBM)):
> %DCL INTEGER CHARACTER;
> %INTEGER = 'FIXED BINARY (31)';
> 			[ or 63 if you're using 64-bit integers.]
> or even
> DEFINE ALIAS INTEGER FIXED BINARY (31);
> DCL K TYPE INTEGER;

Machine dependent, and likely to go astray in complex expressions using
literals.  No thank you.

> ..
> | Overloading (as opposed to the lame GENERIC feature).
> ..
> GENERIC is fine.

No it isn't.  It is a first cut at the problem that every language
designer since has looked at and said, "But why not just make it
automatic?"  It is essentially an artifact of the limits of the design
of the OS/360 linkage editor.  And it doesn't work in association with
templating, whether makeshift templating by macros or true templating in
the language.

PL/I was the most advanced language of 1965.  It continues to be in some
ways the most advanced language with mainstream support in z/OS.  But
there are a great many things that have happened in language design
since 1965, some of them happening in explicit recognition of places
where hindsight has shown PL/I to have made a mistake, such as GENERIC,
anonymous pointers, dynamic condition handlers, automatic fixed-point
scaling by rule, and integers treated as merely scaled fixed-point with
q=0.  It needs to be dragged into the 21st century if it is to continue
to exist as anything but a legacy.

--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams.  "Judgement at Chelmsford"

robin wrote:

> From: "Mark Yudkin" <myudkinATcompuserveDOTcom@nospam.org>, CompuServe Int
eractive Services
> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 11:35:38 +0100
> ..
> | Currently, fixed bin and integer is even messier than you seem to realiz
e:
> | Under rules(ibm), fixed binary can be scaled,
> ..
> Not really.  Try using the ADD, SUBTRACT, MULTIPLY, DIVIDE
> builtins.  They force conversion to FIXED DECIMAL,
> which is a real pain.

No they don't.


--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams.  "Judgement at Chelmsford"