On 01 Jan 2024 at 05:45:08 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:

> On 31 Dec 2023 22:50:01 GMT
> TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 31 Dec 2023 at 21:36:25 GMT, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I remember that. It had something to do with enclosing all keywords
>>> in apostrophes in place of the bold-faced type in the reference books.
>>> It was nasty both in appearance and typing.
>>
>> Yes, yes !! That was it. Quite why we had to do that was a mystery.
>
> It was so that the set of keywords in the language could be
> extended without any risk of them ever being mistaken for variables. The
> idea was that keywords were picked out by "stropping" them either by CASE
> or with 'quotes' or by typeface (bold usually) instead of there being a set
> of keywords that could not be used as variable names.

Yebbut that was never going to work, given the technology of the day. I think
I wrote one program in it and didn't bother after that.

--
Tim

On 1 Jan 2024 10:31:05 GMT
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:

> On 01 Jan 2024 at 05:45:08 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net>
> wrote:
>
> > It was so that the set of keywords in the language could be
> > extended without any risk of them ever being mistaken for variables. The
> > idea was that keywords were picked out by "stropping" them either by
> > CASE or with 'quotes' or by typeface (bold usually) instead of there
> > being a set of keywords that could not be used as variable names.
>
> Yebbut that was never going to work, given the technology of the day. I
> think I wrote one program in it and didn't bother after that.

But it *did* work - you could even type the code stropped with
quotes or UPPER CASE and print it stropped with bold face or italic.

I quite liked Algol 60, and Algol W was OK as teaching languages go
but I really didn't get on with Algol 68C - nasty over-complex mess of a
language - meeting it at the same time as BCPL only emphasised the
impression.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

On 01 Jan 2024 at 12:06:22 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:

> On 1 Jan 2024 10:31:05 GMT
> TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 01 Jan 2024 at 05:45:08 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It was so that the set of keywords in the language could be
>>> extended without any risk of them ever being mistaken for variables. The
>>> idea was that keywords were picked out by "stropping" them either by
>>> CASE or with 'quotes' or by typeface (bold usually) instead of there
>>> being a set of keywords that could not be used as variable names.
>>
>> Yebbut that was never going to work, given the technology of the day. I
>> think I wrote one program in it and didn't bother after that.
>
> But it *did* work - you could even type the code stropped with
> quotes or UPPER CASE and print it stropped with bold face or italic.

Not on standard line printers of the day which IIRC didn't even have lower
case. And the quotes were just a pain.

--
Tim

On 1 Jan 2024 14:22:36 GMT
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:

> On 01 Jan 2024 at 12:06:22 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On 1 Jan 2024 10:31:05 GMT
> > TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 01 Jan 2024 at 05:45:08 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot"
> >> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It was so that the set of keywords in the language could be
> >>> extended without any risk of them ever being mistaken for variables.
> >>> The idea was that keywords were picked out by "stropping" them either
> >>> by CASE or with 'quotes' or by typeface (bold usually) instead of
> >>> there being a set of keywords that could not be used as variable
> >>> names.
> >>
> >> Yebbut that was never going to work, given the technology of the day. I
> >> think I wrote one program in it and didn't bother after that.
> >
> > But it *did* work - you could even type the code stropped with
> > quotes or UPPER CASE and print it stropped with bold face or italic.
>
> Not on standard line printers of the day which IIRC didn't even have lower
> case. And the quotes were just a pain.

No on those it would have to print quote stropping, even if it was
typed in with case or bold stropping on some fancy terminal.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 12:09:10 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Did pascal have curlies?

No:
{ ...
} is written as
BEGIN
...
END

Sweet memories of Borland Turbo Pascal with Turbo Vision ...
--
Regards,
Kees Nuyt

On 2024-01-01, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On 31 Dec 2023 22:50:01 GMT
> TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 31 Dec 2023 at 21:36:25 GMT, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I remember that. It had something to do with enclosing all keywords
>>> in apostrophes in place of the bold-faced type in the reference books.
>>> It was nasty both in appearance and typing.
>>
>> Yes, yes !! That was it. Quite why we had to do that was a mystery.
>
> It was so that the set of keywords in the language could be
> extended without any risk of them ever being mistaken for variables. The
> idea was that keywords were picked out by "stropping" them either by CASE
> or with 'quotes' or by typeface (bold usually) instead of there being a set
> of keywords that could not be used as variable names.

That makes sense. Remember COBOL reserved words?

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | The Internet is like a big city:
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | it has plenty of bright lights and
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | excitement, but also dark alleys
/ \ if you read it the right way. | down which the unwary get mugged.

On 01 Jan 2024 at 19:04:13 GMT, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:

> On 2024-01-01, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On 31 Dec 2023 22:50:01 GMT
>> TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31 Dec 2023 at 21:36:25 GMT, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I remember that. It had something to do with enclosing all keywords
>>>> in apostrophes in place of the bold-faced type in the reference books.
>>>> It was nasty both in appearance and typing.
>>>
>>> Yes, yes !! That was it. Quite why we had to do that was a mystery.
>>
>> It was so that the set of keywords in the language could be
>> extended without any risk of them ever being mistaken for variables. The
>> idea was that keywords were picked out by "stropping" them either by CASE
>> or with 'quotes' or by typeface (bold usually) instead of there being a set
>> of keywords that could not be used as variable names.
>
> That makes sense. Remember COBOL reserved words?

What SQLite does is sort of the opposite. If you want to define a column or
table with what is in fact a reserved word, then you have to put double-quotes
around it in your definition. If you avoid reserved words then nothing (except
strings) needs quoting. Much better than what Algol did. Really off-putting,
it was.

--
Tim

On 1 Jan 2024 19:08:40 GMT
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:

> On 01 Jan 2024 at 19:04:13 GMT, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2024-01-01, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 31 Dec 2023 22:50:01 GMT
> >> TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 31 Dec 2023 at 21:36:25 GMT, "Charlie Gibbs"
> >>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I remember that. It had something to do with enclosing all keywords
> >>>> in apostrophes in place of the bold-faced type in the reference
> >>>> books. It was nasty both in appearance and typing.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, yes !! That was it. Quite why we had to do that was a mystery.
> >>
> >> It was so that the set of keywords in the language could be
> >> extended without any risk of them ever being mistaken for variables.
> >> The idea was that keywords were picked out by "stropping" them either
> >> by CASE or with 'quotes' or by typeface (bold usually) instead of
> >> there being a set of keywords that could not be used as variable names.
> >
> > That makes sense. Remember COBOL reserved words?
>
> What SQLite does is sort of the opposite. If you want to define a column
> or table with what is in fact a reserved word, then you have to put
> double-quotes around it in your definition. If you avoid reserved words
> then nothing (except strings) needs quoting. Much better than what Algol
> did. Really off-putting, it was.

That does not achieve what the Algol stropping achieves, which is
to ensure that code does not need to be changed when the language is
extended. If a new keyword is added to Algol it doesn't matter if code uses
that word as a variable, it will still compile correctly and do what it
ever did.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

On 01 Jan 2024 at 20:05:56 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:

> On 1 Jan 2024 19:08:40 GMT
> TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 01 Jan 2024 at 19:04:13 GMT, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-01-01, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31 Dec 2023 22:50:01 GMT
>>>> TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 31 Dec 2023 at 21:36:25 GMT, "Charlie Gibbs"
>>>>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I remember that. It had something to do with enclosing all keywords
>>>>>> in apostrophes in place of the bold-faced type in the reference
>>>>>> books. It was nasty both in appearance and typing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, yes !! That was it. Quite why we had to do that was a mystery.
>>>>
>>>> It was so that the set of keywords in the language could be
>>>> extended without any risk of them ever being mistaken for variables.
>>>> The idea was that keywords were picked out by "stropping" them either
>>>> by CASE or with 'quotes' or by typeface (bold usually) instead of
>>>> there being a set of keywords that could not be used as variable names.
>>>
>>> That makes sense. Remember COBOL reserved words?
>>
>> What SQLite does is sort of the opposite. If you want to define a column
>> or table with what is in fact a reserved word, then you have to put
>> double-quotes around it in your definition. If you avoid reserved words
>> then nothing (except strings) needs quoting. Much better than what Algol
>> did. Really off-putting, it was.
>
> That does not achieve what the Algol stropping achieves, which is
> to ensure that code does not need to be changed when the language is
> extended. If a new keyword is added to Algol it doesn't matter if code uses
> that word as a variable, it will still compile correctly and do what it
> ever did.

Funny how no other language I've come across in the intervening 55 or more
years has found it necessary to do that.

--
Tim

TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> writes:
> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> That does not achieve what the Algol stropping achieves, which is to
>> ensure that code does not need to be changed when the language is
>> extended. If a new keyword is added to Algol it doesn't matter if
>> code uses that word as a variable, it will still compile correctly
>> and do what it ever did.
>
> Funny how no other language I've come across in the intervening 55 or
> more years has found it necessary to do that.

The problem still exists, other languages just don’t attempt to solve
it. All the impacted users get to modify their code to work around the
damage instead.

The case of ‘export’ in C++ was particularly grating, since almost no
implementations ever supported the functionality, but some of them still
error when encountering the new keyword.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 02 Jan 2024 at 08:20:47 GMT, "Richard Kettlewell" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

> TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> writes:
>> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> That does not achieve what the Algol stropping achieves, which is to
>>> ensure that code does not need to be changed when the language is
>>> extended. If a new keyword is added to Algol it doesn't matter if
>>> code uses that word as a variable, it will still compile correctly
>>> and do what it ever did.
>>
>> Funny how no other language I've come across in the intervening 55 or
>> more years has found it necessary to do that.
>
> The problem still exists, other languages just don’t attempt to solve
> it. All the impacted users get to modify their code to work around the
> damage instead.

Much the best approach. And you don't actually have to do anything unless you
are making a new version.

--
Tim

On 2023-12-31 13:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>
> Did pascal have curlies?

Yes, but in another context

{ this is a comment in pascal }

The first time I saw C, I wondered why it was so much comments ...

--
/Björn