INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3   
   REPLYADDR tim@streater.me.uk   
   REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP   
   MSGID:  cba1e5c2   
   REPLY: <20240101200556.b6a00bf16347d140ac40ea21@eircom.net> 00471699   
   PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
   On 01 Jan 2024 at 20:05:56 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot"    
   wrote:   
      
   > On 1 Jan 2024 19:08:40 GMT   
   > TimS  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 01 Jan 2024 at 19:04:13 GMT, "Charlie Gibbs"    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2024-01-01, Ahem A Rivet's Shot  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 31 Dec 2023 22:50:01 GMT   
   >>>> TimS  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 31 Dec 2023 at 21:36:25 GMT, "Charlie Gibbs"   
   >>>>>  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   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)   
   SEEN-BY: 15/0 19/38 90/1 105/81 106/201 128/260 129/305 135/225 153/7715   
   SEEN-BY: 218/700 226/30 227/114 229/110 112 113 200 206 307 317 400   
   SEEN-BY: 229/426 428 452 470 550 616 664 700 266/512 282/1038 291/111   
   SEEN-BY: 292/854 320/219 322/757 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/280 281   
   SEEN-BY: 633/412 418 420 509 2744 712/848 770/1 3 100 330 340 772/210   
   SEEN-BY: 772/220 230 5020/400 5075/35   
   PATH: 770/3 1 633/280 229/426