PL/I, was Re: Error reporting, was Infinite look ahead required by C++?

Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Thu, 01 Apr 2010 13:24:01 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[7 earlier articles]
Re: Error reporting, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? sh006d3592@blueyonder.co.uk (Stephen Horne) (2010-02-17)
Re: Error reporting, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2010-02-19)
Re: Error reporting, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? jdenny@clemson.edu (Joel E. Denny) (2010-02-21)
Re: Error reporting, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2010-02-28)
Re: Error reporting, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? jdenny@clemson.edu (Joel E. Denny) (2010-03-21)
Re: Error reporting, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2010-03-28)
PL/I, was Re: Error reporting, was Infinite look ahead required by C++ bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2010-04-01)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 13:24:01 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: 10-02-024 10-02-029 10-02-047 10-02-055 10-02-062 10-02-064 10-02-070 10-02-072 10-02-078 10-02-080 10-03-002 10-03-069 10-04-003
Keywords: PL/I, syntax
Posted-Date: 01 Apr 2010 13:57:39 EDT

Chris F Clark <cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:


> ...In PL/I, the language has many keywords, but [almost] none of
> them are reserved, ...


What are the exceptions? And why do they exist?


- Bob
[PL/I is supposed to have no reserved words at all. The idea was that it was a large
language, many programmers wouldn't know all of it, and they wanted to avoid the COBOL
problem of unknown reserved words breaking programs. -John]


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.