The 2012 part of the comment led me to believe that he felt IBM was late in delivering this. Though the comment's meaning is somewhat vague and could probably be interpreted in different ways.
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Yeung
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:16 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: new PTF for v7.1 CL programming
Matt Olson wrote:
It's things like this just make me shake my head. It's 2012 IBM!
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM, <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Now, you can reply back on how any decent language should have this,
that or the other thing. And that might make for some interesting
watercooler talk around the office. However, if you want IBM to
actually DO something about it - request it.
To be fair, Matt didn't say he actually wanted anything done. His comment, taken at face value, expresses amazement, period. I think most CL programmers have either not needed this (since *TCAT and *BCAT handle many of the use cases of %TRIM) or have been working around it by using RPG or some other language whenever string handling gets past a certain threshold of complexity. So I think an observer can be just as incredulous at the fact that IBM *did* bother to allocate resources putting this in, this late in the game.
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l