× 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: X-Spec (was: "RPG isn't cool")
  • From: david.kahn@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 14:09:17 +0100



boldt@ca.ibm.com wrote:

>1) IFxx, DOWxx, etc.  There are currently expression alternatives
>   for these, so why bother carrying these forward in the new
>   scheme.  Do we support these in the CF-Spec?  ie. Do we allow
>   code like:  " CF   ifeq counter 17 "?

Let's leave these behind in the fixed format specs.

>2) String ops:  SCAN, SUBST, XLATE, etc.  There are expression
>   or BIF alternatives (or will be) for most (possibly all) of
>   these.  Do we support these opcodes in the CF-Spec?

These can be hard enough to decipher in columnar format. BIFs please.

>3) Move ops:  MOVE, MOVEL.  You could code EVAL/EVALR for many
>   moves, but not all MOVEs are easily convertible to the EVAL
>   statement.  Do we support MOVEs in the CF-Spec?  (If not, we
>   would have to add additional new BIFs, which still wouldn't
>   cover all of MOVE semantics.)

In common with many others I'd like to have MOVE and MOVEL available in the CF
spec.

>4) Arithmetic ops:  ADD, SUB, etc.  As many have already
>   discovered, arithmetic in expressions is not totally
>   compatible with arithmetic in the fixed opcodes.  Do we
>   support these in the CF-Spec?  ie.  Do we allow code
>   like:  " CF  add 1 counter "?

"CF  add 1 counter"  looks innocent enough, but
"CF  add Net Tax TotalInvoice" is not so clear. Again, let's leave these behind
if possible.

>(This list isn't complete, but is representative enough for the
>purpose of helping us decide the issue.)
>
>So, the general issue is how much of the "old" stuff do we carry
>forward in the CF-Spec and how much can we leave behind?

Hans, no-one in this forum has said they're not interested. So it seems that the
programmers at least can't wait our hands on it. Roll it on. Let's not include
outdated opcodes except where they provide extra value; they will still be
supported in the C spec, after all. One thing I would ask is that you allow C
and CF specs to be mixed at will. Although it'll look ghastly and ruin the
indenting we all want, it will make the switch-over easier and allow its gradual
adoption. Good programmers won't mix the specs ad lib, of course, but they
should always have the option to slide a block of C or CF specs in anywhere.

Dave Kahn, ABB Steward Ltd.


+---
| 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 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.