Re: PL/I outflanks Fortran

Re: PL/I outflanks Fortran

[those who know me have no need of my name]

[fu-t set]

in comp.lang.pl1 i read:
>Tim wrote:

>> > Which compilers offer the HEX function?

>> At least VA- for windows.  I just tried it out.
>> VisualAge(TM) PL/I for Windows(R)  V2.R1.08

>As well as Ada for any system,

since this wasn't cross-posted to comp.lang.ada (added, fu-t set) nor a
general programming group nor an advocacy group i don't see why you
responded, but since you mention it:

>            Put (Item => D, Base => 16);
>
>     where the base parameter can be any value from 2 through 16

seems fairly restrictive given the well defined conventions for bases
through 36.

-- 
bringing you boring signatures for 17 years

Re: PL/I outflanks Fortran

[Frank J. Lhota]

"those who know me have no need of my name" <not-a-real-address@usa.net>
wrote in message news:m1d6kn8334.gnus@usa.net...
> >            Put (Item => D, Base => 16);
> >
> >     where the base parameter can be any value from 2 through 16
>
> seems fairly restrictive given the well defined conventions for bases
> through 36.

Have you actually had the need to read / write numbers in any base in the
range 17 .. 36? For that matter, how many non-recreational software projects
really have a need for a number base other than 2, 8, 10, or 16? (Pretty
soon, I should be able to drop 8 from that list).

Re: PL/I outflanks Fortran

[those who know me have no need of my name]

in comp.lang.ada i read:
>"those who know me have no need of my name" <not-a-real-address@usa.net>
>wrote in message news:m1d6kn8334.gnus@usa.net...

>> >            Put (Item => D, Base => 16);
>> >
>> >     where the base parameter can be any value from 2 through 16
>>
>> seems fairly restrictive given the well defined conventions for bases
>> through 36.
>
>Have you actually had the need to read / write numbers in any base in the
>range 17 .. 36? For that matter, how many non-recreational software projects
>really have a need for a number base other than 2, 8, 10, or 16? (Pretty
>soon, I should be able to drop 8 from that list).

i'm not sure it matters whether i find it useful, after all you find only 4
out of 15 to be useful.  i.e., that there is little common use for e.g base
9 did not prevent the language designers from providing for it, so why not
the entire well defined range?

-- 
bringing you boring signatures for 17 years

Re: PL/I outflanks Fortran

[Robert I. Eachus]

> i'm not sure it matters whether i find it useful, after all you find only 4
> out of 15 to be useful.  i.e., that there is little common use for e.g base
> 9 did not prevent the language designers from providing for it, so why not
> the entire well defined range?

There is a subtle place where it matters, Ada.Text_IO.Integer_IO.Get 
reads a number (without a point) according to the syntax of an integer 
literal.  (Ada.Text_IO.Float_IO allows a point.)  This means that when 
reading a string like 23#ABCEDFGHI... the read will stop immediately 
after the F.  So as long as we are allowing A, B, C, D, E, and F for 
hexadecimal constants, there is no reason to outlaw bases lower than 16, 
but higher bases would have noticable effects even if a user never 
expected to use based numbers.