RE: CF-Spec - another call for opinions

Exactly, 

allowing something like 

*procedurename()

and you can leave off the opcode, seems OK to me 

>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John P Carr [mailto:jpcarr@tredegar.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 1:34 PM
>>> To: RPG400-L
>>> Subject: RE: CF-Spec - another call for opinions
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Colin said;
>>> >I beg to differ. Having to change source on an upgrade is 
>>> a very big
>>> >deal. Thats the sort of thing that prevents people from upgrading!
>>> 
>>> I can see it now,  2-3 years after the CF's are in,   a 
>>> person goes into 
>>> a source member, makes a one line change,  and the compile listing 
>>> tells her/him  that they have to change a half dozen variable names 
>>> because "now" they are keywords. 
>>> 
>>> "It used to work,   Now it don't ,   What the @#$%@ did they do? "
>>> 
>>> One thing about *ON, *OFF, *ZERO, *BLANK    You never confused them
>>> with your variable names.
>>> 
>>> John Carr
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> +---
>>> | This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
>>> | To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
>>> | To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
>>> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to 
>>> RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
>>> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: 
>>> david@midrange.com
>>> +---END
>>> 
+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---END