|
Hans, Here's my not so humble opinion: >I would like to ask those interested to offer opinions on the >following design question: To what extent should the fixed-form >opcodes participate in the new scheme? It is possible to support >all except 9 or 10 opcodes. (Most of these require resulting >indicators, which are not allowed in the CF-Spec). But other >opcodes fall into a number of general groups: I would argue that we don't need the fixed form opcodes at all in the CF spec. The fixed C spec would still exist, so we wouldn't be losing anything, and future versions could add the BIF's we need to do all the string handling. In the interim, we could code the mainline with CF specs, and put the fixed C spec stuff in procedures, where the data manipulation should probably be anyway... Buck Calabro +--- | 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 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.