On 07/09/2022 18:54, Bill Findlay wrote:
[I wrote:]
>> The Walgol* compiler went further and tried to be helpful by
>> completing words if it could. The trouble was that many of our students
>> couldn't spell, and "proceedure" turned into "procedure e do until real"
>> which was far more confusing than simply giving an error message in the
>> first place. [...]
> Walgol? I think not, see:
>> /Users/wf/KDF9/emulation/Testing: cat Whetstone/WALKER.a60
>> WALKER|
>> _b_e_g_i_n
>> _p_r_o_c_e_e_d_u_r_e eh; ;
>> _e_n_d
[...]
> FAIL 126 is "illegal underlined word".

OK, but:

(a) Is that the version of Walgol that we would have been using ~1970?
I can imagine that there would have been enough complaints that what
initially seemed a Good Idea would have been changed after a year or
two.

(b) We were using punched cards, no underline, so apostrophe stropping.
Might that make a difference? [We also didn't ever get things like
"FAIL 126" -- every compiler I have ever used gave proper error
messages! Unlike those editors which just say "?"!]

If neither (a) nor (b) applies, then the "blame" switches to Egdon ....

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Pridham

On 8 Sep 2022, Andy Walker wrote
(in article <tfcioq$1a7n$1@gioia.aioe.org>):

> On 07/09/2022 18:54, Bill Findlay wrote:
> [I wrote:]
> > > The Walgol* compiler went further and tried to be helpful by
> > > completing words if it could. The trouble was that many of our students
> > > couldn't spell, and "proceedure" turned into "procedure e do until real"
> > > which was far more confusing than simply giving an error message in the
> > > first place. [...]
> > Walgol? I think not, see:
> > > /Users/wf/KDF9/emulation/Testing: cat Whetstone/WALKER.a60
> > > WALKER|
> > > _b_e_g_i_n
> > > _p_r_o_c_e_e_d_u_r_e eh; ;
> > > _e_n_d
> [...]
> > FAIL 126 is "illegal underlined word".
>
> OK, but:
>
> (a) Is that the version of Walgol that we would have been using ~1970?

Perhaps there was a homemade variant.

> I can imagine that there would have been enough complaints that what
> initially seemed a Good Idea would have been changed after a year or
> two.
>
> (b) We were using punched cards, no underline, so apostrophe stropping.
> Might that make a difference? [We also didn't ever get things like
> "FAIL 126" -- every compiler I have ever used gave proper error
> messages! Unlike those editors which just say "?"!]
>
> If neither (a) nor (b) applies, then the "blame" switches to Egdon ....

I used EGDON ALGOL intensively. It did not do what you describe.

--
Bill Findlay

Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 5:49:08 AM UTC+10, Rich Alderson wrote:
>> Robin Vowels <robin....@gmail.com> writes:

>>> OK, other implementations of PL/I language included
>> [ snip ]
>>> DEC System 10 and 20
>> [ snip ]

>> Details?

>> I went from being a PL/I programmer on OS/360 to SVS to MVS, and latterly
>> moved to TOPS-20 on a DEC-20. The rest of my career (~40 years) was spent on
>> the latter architecture, and I've NEVER HEARD OF PL/I FOR THE PDP-10.

>> Had I know it existed, I'd have badgered management anywhere I worked for it.
>> Relentlessly.

> .
> You needed to ask for CPL.
> The publication is decsystem10 Conversational Programming Language
> User's Manual, DEC-10-LCPUA-A-D, 1975.

Ah. CPL. I thought you meant a full PL/I compiler.

Never mind, thanks.

--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen