From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6609c40f81b32989
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,9bdec20bcc7f3687
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,gid8d3408f8c3,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:03:37 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <hujpgf$p59$1@news.eternal-september.org>
References: <huii3u$u9$2@news.eternal-september.org>
 <bd8fd2b53ceb6e470bdff8a6d02ae579@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 21:49:03 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx01.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="V8SydqRRXuF8ysuwvpMn7w";
	logging-data="25769"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19WCdOPosDmkb4kWJ4h+w2V"
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
In-Reply-To: <bd8fd2b53ceb6e470bdff8a6d02ae579@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lN+s1vXVuJZWAFrlZf/cLGm4cbM=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12424 comp.lang.fortran:26493
 comp.lang.pl1:1527
Date: 2010-06-07T18:03:37-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>> Of course that's effectively two programs - a macro processor and an 
>> assembler.  The PL/I preprocessor isn't tied to the language and can be 
>> used as a general-purpose macro processor.
> 
> The IBM assembler macro processor *is* part of the assembler and *is*
> tightly bound to the language.
> 

Sort of.  OS/360 SYSGEN used the assembler as part of its process, but 
it didn't really assemble anything.  The sysprog coded assembler macros 
to specify the options he wanted included in the system, the macros were 
processed by the assembler, which punched a "stage 2" deck of JCL and 
utility control cards.

The PL/I preprocessor is part of the compiler, but I have used it for 
macro processing completely unrelated to PL/I.