I need a new compiler...
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: COBOL/CICS/DB2 - COBOL for MVS and compile option DYNAM -solution from 2006
Next: Still one more Overlapping operands test
From: Pete Dashwood on 15 Dec 2008 20:41 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <6qo384Fdm7afU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>> In article <ln4dk45di2426735qdfmts6qn42stlgh3o(a)4ax.com>, >>> Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> That said, many marketing terms have become part of our >>>> language - for instance the made-up word "cemetery" has pretty much >>>> replaced "graveyard". >>> >>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cemetery shows 'Date: 15th >>> century' and a derivation from Greek and Sanskrit. >>> >>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graveyard shows 'Date: >>> 1761' and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grave shows a >>> derivation from Old Church Slavic. >>> >> >> Interesting. >> >> The English spelling of "cemetery" is "cemetary". > > E'en more interesting... according to my copy of the OED (two-volume > 20th printing, January, 1981) Vol I, page 365, page 217, col i, the > words, in order are: > > Cementum > Cemeterial > Cemetery > > ... and for the last there are given a variety of forms, from > 'cymytery' to... 'cemetary'. No primary listing for 'cemetary' (not > even a 'see 'cemetery'') can I find. Thanks Doc. I don't have a copy but I believe you. I was relying on what was drummed into me at school. I thought it might be NZ usage (since that is the most common form of the word here), but it isn't. All the official sources show "cemetery" as preferred. I stand corrected, and will use this form in future. Just as a matter of passing interest is it "Cemetary Ridge" or "Cemetery Ridge" where the famous Civil War battle was fought? Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Anonymous on 15 Dec 2008 21:32 In article <6qofavFdo3roU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> In article <6qo384Fdm7afU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>>> In article <ln4dk45di2426735qdfmts6qn42stlgh3o(a)4ax.com>, >>>> Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>> That said, many marketing terms have become part of our >>>>> language - for instance the made-up word "cemetery" has pretty much >>>>> replaced "graveyard". >>>> >>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cemetery shows 'Date: 15th >>>> century' and a derivation from Greek and Sanskrit. >>>> >>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graveyard shows 'Date: >>>> 1761' and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grave shows a >>>> derivation from Old Church Slavic. >>>> >>> >>> Interesting. >>> >>> The English spelling of "cemetery" is "cemetary". >> >> E'en more interesting... according to my copy of the OED (two-volume >> 20th printing, January, 1981) Vol I, page 365, page 217, col i, the >> words, in order are: >> >> Cementum >> Cemeterial >> Cemetery >> >> ... and for the last there are given a variety of forms, from >> 'cymytery' to... 'cemetary'. No primary listing for 'cemetary' (not >> even a 'see 'cemetery'') can I find. > >Thanks Doc. I don't have a copy but I believe you. Your trust is touching, Mr Dashwood... but please, double-check the work offered you. I've made enough mistakes, transposed enough letters, relied on enough wrong sources and done too much work on 'it sounds good to me!' to believe a citing should be treated in any other way. (I believe it was the Wyfe of Bath who would, after making some manner of odd pronouncement, would finish it with '... and you can look it up, it's right there in your Almagest!' Discussion of the intention of this phrase and attitude might be reserved for another thread... but, in general, when someone offers a cite, check it. 'You see? Right there, the Book of Exodus, Chapter XX, verse 15: 'Thou shalt... hey, I don't remember it *that* way, where'd the 'not' come from? You mean stealing is... wrong?!?') >I was relying on what was >drummed into me at school. You were relying on memory, Mr Dashwood... and everyone knows that the 'first thing to go' is... uhhhhh.... I forgot. >Just as a matter of passing interest is it "Cemetary Ridge" or "Cemetery >Ridge" where the famous Civil War battle was fought? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cemetery_Ridge .... or for those needing another source: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Gettysburg lists 'Cemetery Hill'. DD
From: Paul on 15 Dec 2008 22:00 On 2008-12-15 10:27:12 -0600, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> said: > PR wrote: >> >> Just go write a few thousand lines of PDP-11 Macro Assembler > > I've seen plenty. Not enough perhaps. > >> and you >> will never again doubt that C is in fact a "portable assembler" > > Oh, yes I will. The "portable assembler" claim has always been at best > a hyperbolic metaphor that captures only a few of C's characteristics. > It's no longer a useful characterization, particularly in light of > the language's evolution. That is your opinion - everyone is welcome to thier own opinions. Just not their own facts. -Paul
From: Paul on 15 Dec 2008 22:13 On 2008-12-15 10:32:41 -0600, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> said: > PR wrote: >> On Dec 12, 11:29 am, Michael Wojcik <mwoj...(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >>> docdw...(a)panix.com wrote: >>> >>>> It is a compiled language, true, but still provides low-level >>>> system/memory/device access in an Assembley-like manner. >>> No, it doesn't. Some C implementations may extend the language to >>> provide direct access to memory and devices (whatever that may mean on >>> the platform), but that's not part of the C language. >> >> Actually, yes it it. > > No, it is not. I suggest you read ISO 9899-1999 (plus Technical > Corregida), which is the definition of the C language. You will find > that it does not require implementations to "provide low-level > system/memory/device access", and indeed does not define any language > constructs which remotely resemble anything such "access" might include. Oh yes, it is. Pointers, and address and indireciton operators were ratified with C89, and are maintained through all current implementations. > >> Access to memory is always defined in C, as >> pointers are intrinsic. > > C pointers do not need to provide access, "low-level" or otherwise, to > physical memory or devices. They need to support the dereference > operator, and so could be considered as providing access to "memory" > in the sense of the abstract machine, but there is *absolutely no > requirement* that such access have any particular relationship to the > hardware. No, they are address operators, similar to and interchangable with the & operator. There is very much an absolute requirement that they do. You are arguing C++, which is a totally different animal indeed. > >> And pointers are not special variable types, > > Indeed. They have pointer type, which is not "special" (whatever that > might mean). But it's not any other kind of type, either. Pointers are address operators, always. If you don't know what "special" means in terms of language and compile construction, then look it up. The usage of the term is both precise and accurate. > >> they originally were integers, and for the most part, still are. > > Originally, yes. As the language is currently defined, no. Type > punning between pointers and integers invokes Undefined Behavior. That > it works in some implementations is beside the point. It invokes a warning at compile time that you did something without a cast. You can certainly cast an address to an integer. I will agree that anyone doing so had best know what they are doing, or else they risk stepping on themselves.
From: Michael Wojcik on 16 Dec 2008 15:54
docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > > It may well be that the ISO or IEEE or ANSI or whatever standard does not > require a version of C to have access to lower levels of memory... but if > all versions have capabilities for such access, and many advantages are > taken in many versions of such access... well, something about walking and > quacking like a duck comes to mind. Since this empirical test is trivially shown to fail, it's a moot point. Many C implementations execute in a process-virtual environment, so at best they can only provide access to process virtual memory. Maybe that's "low-level" to some, but there are a great many turtles below it. There are C implementations where pointers are not machine addresses at all, notably the various implementations for the AS/400. On those machines, C pointers were 128-bit tokens that identified objects in the single-level store, but they did not contain machine addresses, which were 64- or 65-bit (for the CISC- and RISC-architecture machines respectively). When C99 was first approved, Peter Seebach claimed to be the only conforming implementation. He spoke in jest, of course, but he had a copy of the standard and fit the definition. And while it's hard to prove this definitively, I suspect most phenomenologists would tell you that few of us have low-level access to our own memories. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University |