Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!guy
From: guy@sun.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: What should be added to C, call it PL/2
Message-ID: <4327@sun.uucp>
Date: Sat, 21-Jun-86 00:18:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.4327
Posted: Sat Jun 21 00:18:15 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jun-86 07:23:07 EDT
References: <36@mit-prep.ARPA> <264@brl-sem.ARPA> <730@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 24

> >You don't want to call it PL/2 anyway because it's not PL/1 it is PL/I.
> 
> On Multics (the distant ancestor of UNIX), it's PL/1; the compiler is
> called "pl1", programs are foo.pl1, etc.  Considering the (historical)

So what?  GE/Honeywell didn't invent the language, IBM did, so if IBM says
it's PL/I it's PL/I.  Furthermore, the fact that the command name of the
compiler, and the language suffix, is ".pl1" doesn't mean that the
language's name is PL/1; what does the Multics *documentation* call it?

> But then, Multics PL/1 is a systems programming language, used to
> write most of the system, and is somewhat different (in programming
> environment, at least) from IBM PL/I.

The language Multics is implemented in is quite recognizable as PL/I, and
isn't some other language called "PL/1".  It was used as a systems
programming language, but it isn't a systems programming language in the
sense that that's *all* it could be used for.  It implemented all the other
grot, so you could write a payroll program in Multics PL/I if you were so
inclined.
-- 
	Guy Harris
	{ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy
	guy@sun.com (or guy@sun.arpa)