mytest:
    proc(cmdArgs, envBlk) options(main);

 dcl
    cmdArgs char(127) var,
    envBlk char(127);

 dcl
    (max, i, j) fixed bin,
    base_page_ptr ptr,
    1 base_page based (base_page_ptr),
      2 pad1 (32) fixed bin(15),
      2 psp_seg fixed bin(15);

 dcl
    cmdLine_ptr ptr,
    cmdLine char(127) var based (cmdLine_ptr);

 dcl
    dateNow char(6),
    timeNow char(9);

 dcl
    junk_waffle fixed bin(7) static initial (20);


    dateNow = DATE();
    timeNow = TIME();
    put skip list (dateNow); put skip list (timeNow);
    put skip edit (substr(dateNow,3,2),'/',substr(dateNow,5,2),'/',substr(dateNow,1,2)) (a(2),a,a(2),a,a(2));
    put skip edit (substr(timeNow,1,2),':',substr(timeNow,3,2),':',substr(timeNow,5,2),'.',substr(timeNow,7,3))
                  (a(2),a,a(2),a,a(2),a,a(3));
    put skip list ('');

    unspec(cmdLine_ptr) = '0080'b4;
    put edit ('command line = ', cmdLine) (a);
    put skip list ('');

    unspec(base_page_ptr) = '0000'b4;
    put edit ('PSP segment = ', unspec(base_page.psp_seg),'h')
             (skip,a,b4(4),a);
    put skip list ('');

    i = length(cmdArgs);
    put edit ('cmdArgs = ', cmdArgs) (a);
    put skip list ('');

    put list ('env = ', envBlk);

    i = '12bc'b4;
    put edit ('i = ',unspec(i),'h') (skip,a,b4(4),a);

    return;                /* just for aesthetics */


    end;          /* of main program */

----
[LV] Anyone know why this page was created? Generally someone adds a note giving us some context.

[escargo] - I'm especially mystified because they got the name of the language wrong (it's [PL/I]).
There is work being done on a PL/I front end to the GNU C compiler; I understand that they are
looking for language samples to compile. - [RS] Thirty years ago, I did some PL/I (or, rather, the "student" subset SL/I) on an IBM 1130... but is PL/I any more than a museum piece today? Long time ago, it was praised as fusion of Fortran and Algol, with some COBOLity thrown in :^) [KPV] PL/I was the first real language I learned twenty five years ago. Don't remember
much of the language except that I remember that [C] seemed trivial afterwards.

[escargo] I was an operator for an 1130 more than 30 years ago.  I always had a fondness for the card reader/punch.
(Makes me wonder if there are any 1130 simulators out there somewhere.) - [RS]: see http://ibm1130.org/sim

[LV] Well, I know at least one company which has production code written in PL/I... several hundred thousand lines of code, as a matter of fact. I don't know about other sites.

[VK] FWIW I consider this page is just off-topic here. No Tcl content, waste of reader's time. Just adding irrelevant information will not do anything good.

[CLN] I've never worked in PL/I (PL/1) myself but I remember someone once telling me about PL/C (PL/I for College students) which, he claimed, tried so hard to give a compiler ''warning'' and guess what the user meant that it would compile a Shakespearean sonnet. ;-)

[VK] so that PL/1 forgives much errors, could be interesting... but I still fail to understand why this discussion belong here.
To continue off-topic, here my PL/1 chunk of correct code of interest:

 if then then then=else; else else=then;

OTOH I must ask for wiki gnomes to delete this entire page! (I am too shy to do this myself)

[TP] VK's example shows off PL/I's purposeful lack of reserved words.  Not every PL/I compiler supported this feature, but
it was certainly present in the PL/I compilers that I used (IBM PL/I Optimizing compiler & PL/I C).  Instead of reserved words, the compiler parsed purely by context.  Other interesting features that
I remember using: 

   * a very elaborate pre-processor, really a mini-PL/I.  Makes C's pre-processor look very anemic.  if/then/else, do-while, etc. all in the pre-processor.  Code that writes code?  Hey, Tcl does that too!!
   * variable labels.  GOTO SOMELABEL could go here, there, or somewhere else depending on its value.  Made maintaining code written by former assembler programmers ''very'' interesting.  

I don't see the controversy of having a PL/I page on the Tcl wiki.  Since it is now a GCC front-end language, someone could
conceivably write a Tcl extension with PL/I.  Note that the wiki already has pages for [Cobol], [Fortran], [APL], [Smalltalk],
[Haskell], [Basic], and other languages that may not have a direct relationship with Tcl.

[LV] VK, alas, the gnomes can't delete the page - the best we can do is delete the contents. As for the controversy, if I knew why the original creator put the code on this page, I'd have some opinion about whether to delete the page or not ;-)

[escargo] - Does anybody see what's being done in the PL/I code to be able to write the equivalent in Tcl? [VK] Chunk of code here mostly demostrates variables declarations; this program essentially does nothing: it outputs date and time, in raw format first, then in edited format (put edit line), then outputs program arguments. Does not look good even for language demonstration purposes, looks like someone's test program. I dislike it.

----
[Category Language]