Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:10630 comp.os.misc:698
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!mit-eddie!killer!usl!usl-pc!jpdres10
From: jpdres10@usl-pc.usl.edu (Green Eric Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Does anyone still use Multics??
Message-ID: <143@usl-pc.usl.edu>
Date: 10 Dec 88 21:17:54 GMT
References: <6392@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <32902@think.UUCP> <438@babbage.acc.virginia.edu> <33004@think.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Lines: 24
Keywords:
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Reply-To:
Followup-To:

In message <33004@think.UUCP>, barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) says:
>In article <438@babbage.acc.virginia.edu> mac3n@babbage.acc.virginia.edu (Alex Colvin) writes:
>>Multics PL/I wasn't full PL/I, either IBM or ANSI.  Effectively, Multics
>>defined the compileable subset of PL/I.  This is responsible for the
>>success (such as it is) of PL/I outside IBM.
>
>The language Multics was originally implemented in was a PL/I subset
>(called EPL), but a full ANSI PL/I compiler was later written, around
>1968 or 1969.  It was revised extensively (to take advantage of new
>hardware features) in 1972.

Hmm... Last time I used Multics and PL/1 was maybe '82 or so, but I do
seem to recall that Multics PL/1 still was a "subset" of the full ANSI
standard at that time (and I don't suspect they've made much change
since). Digging out my old Multics PL/1 manual doesn't give much
enlightenment, though. Page 1, section 1, INTRODUCTION: "Multics PL/1
is closely related to ANSI PL/1. [...]  This manual does not specify
all differences between Multics PL/1 and Standard PL/1 [...] see
Appendix A of the PL/1 Language Specification" (another manual which I
do not, of course, have hanging around cluttering up my bookshelves).

--
Eric Lee Green                            P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509
     {ames,mit-eddie,osu-cis,...}!killer!elg, killer!usl!elg, etc.