× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Re: Missing from RPG/LE
  • From: Hans Boldt <boldt@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:38:37 -0400

David Morris wrote:
>What about any of these?
>
>Full support for parameterized types, by far most important.  So we could
>write our own %range, %in, etc. procedures.

I assume you mean being able to pass any data type
and have full operational descriptor support to be
able to handle the full range of types.

>Real support for system pointers.  So we can dynamically call procedures
>without worrying that it won't work some day.

Could you clarify what the problem is?

>Support for file alias so we could use the same file twice.  So we can take
>full advantage of blocking without having to use convoluted overrides, etc.

I'd like more information on what you want here
as well.  We do have some ideas already on making
more file specs options available which should
alleviate the need for overrides.

>%passed built-in.  So we can easily see if a CONST/VALUE parameter with
>*NOPASS & *OMIT  was passed.

There are some technical difficulties in providing a
%PASSED bif.  The key requirement, though, is determining
whether or not a CONST OPTIONS(*OMIT) parameter is passed.
In the future, we will likely allow being able to test
%ADDR(parm) for CONST parms.  This should solve the
problem.

>%round built-in.  So we can avoid a half adjust line statement after
>an eval.

There are several alternatives available today:  half-adjust
on the EVAL statement, %DECH, %INTH, and %UNSH.

>% operator for remainder.  So we can avoid divide and move remainder
>statements after/in eval.

Planned for next ILE RPG release:  bif %REM.

>*Continue return point from *PSSR.  So we don't have to code EXSR *PSSR,
>especially for statements that don't support (e) or error indicators.

We've wanted this type of thing for a long time.
But, we've never adequately resolved what to do for
cycle functions.  Or at least, that's been our excuse!
Also, depending on implementation, there may be a
slight performance penalty with this.

On the other hand, we've also been thinking of other
ways to handle exceptions, such as TRY & CATCH
statements.

Cheers!  Hans

Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.com
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.