Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site ea.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm
From: mwm@ea.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: How standard is COBOL ?
Message-ID: <5400016@ea.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 23:37:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ea.5400016
Posted: Mon Nov 19 23:37:00 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Nov-84 03:30:30 EST
References: <422@houxj.UUCP>
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #R:houxj:-42200:ea:5400016:000:837
Nf-From: ea!mwm    Nov 19 22:37:00 1984

/***** ea:net.lang / ima!johnl /  8:22 pm  Nov 17, 1984 */
PS:  How many other languages let you write:

	IF KICK-BACK GREATER THAN 10 AND LESS THAN 100 THEN ...

without having to mention kick-back twice?  They don't design them like they
used to.  Probably just as well.
/* ---------- */

At least three. The (much more readable, to my mathematically warped mind)
line:

	10 < KICK-BACK < 100

will work correctly in both BCPL and Icon. I'm not sure how BCPL does
it, but Icon has the notion of "success" and "failure" of an expression.
For instance, the statement

	if x < 10 then a :=: b

will exchange a and b iff the expression "x < 10" succeeds. This happens
if x is less than 10, and the expression has the value 10. Hence,
10 < x < 100 is either 100, or fails.

In LISP, the expression (< 10 KICK-BACK 100) should work.

	<mike