Yes, as in your own correction, you were thinking about APL. ALGOL 68 was certainly more readable than C or Pascal, even if it was somewhat more verbose. A ve

Yes, as in your own correction, you were thinking about APL. ALGOL 68 was certainly more readable than C or Pascal, even if it was somewhat more verbose. A very good feature of ALGOL 68 was that all the syntactic structures were enclosed in brackets, so no ambiguities or editing errors were possible, like in C or ALGOL 60. Moreover, each syntactic structure had its own pair of brackets, so you did not have the reading difficulties caused by all bracket pairs being the same, like "()" in LISP, "begin" and "end" in Pascal or "{}" in C. Especially useful is having different bracket pairs for iterations ("do" and "od" in ALGOL 68, renamed as "do" and "done" in the Bourne shell, which sounds better) in comparison with the bracket pairs used for conditional statements ("if" and "fi" in ALGOL 68). In C and derived languages, even the indentation is not enough to understand the code in many cases, especially when the lines are restricted to 80 characters, when you have a long loop body that cannot be seen inside a single page. In ALGOL 68, you have distinct closing brackets for each syntactic structure, so it is easy to recognize their meaning. Using keywords for brackets is more verbose than in C, but much less verbose than using terminating comments. Moreover, now we can use Unicode for program texts, so instead of keywords one could use different pairs of Unicode brackets that are graphically distinct. For instance one can use angular brackets for conditional statements and S-shaped bag delimiter brackets for iterations.