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 skip edit' line), then outputs program arguments. It contains only single comment ''/* just for aesthetics */'' which is just not wise (actually this is a good example of bad commenting style). Sample code does not look good even for language demonstration purposes, looks like someone's test program: its named ''mytest'', what do you want from it? It is not even PI calculation! I dislike it. Garbage!

PL/1 is happen to be my very first language, and its time is now long in the past. Interestingly, other languages from that time survived better. I meant LISP among interesting ones, which is very interesting from Tcl perspective. Even Fortran deserves more attention, as there are many scientific libraries working with it.

----
[Category Language]