× 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: Bitwise ops in RPG
  • From: Jim Langston <jimlangston@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:26:49 -0800
  • Organization: Pacer International

I would tend to agree, Hans.  If there is already a build in MI
instruction that you can use similar to a BIF no need to make a
BIF for it.

Personally, I don't like BIFs, but as someone said, it's a
Florida type majority for BIFs.

Making bit operations infix operators would just appease the small
minority of us who also program in other languages and are used to
those type of operators.  No real business need to do them, less
you got a spare $100 and extra time laying around.

Could someone please point to the documentation on the Bitwise MI
instructions with perhaps a line or two on how to use them?  Thanks.

Regards,

Jim Langston

boldt@ca.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> Doug wrote:
> >So far I've seen two votes for the BIF version (at least in what has made
> it
> >back to me thus far).
> >
> >Did you realize that V4R2 (or so) added MI builtins which, for all
> practical
> >purposes, already give you the equivalent function with nearly identical
> syntax
> >to the BIF version aside from the name?  The only real thing the BIF would
> >change is add documentation in the RPG manual, and drop the need to
> prototype
> >the MI builtins (which can be included via /COPY).  Barbara Morris has
> posted
> >sample code in the past using the builtins.
> >
> >I'm not adverse to adding the BIFs, presumming they are fast for you to
> add.
> >But as a general rule I prefer you to add things I can't already do.  I
> suspect
> >this would cost so little of my $100 that I wouldn't vote against it, but
> it
> >wouldn't be very high on my list either.
> 
> Actually, I was not aware of those V4R2 MI builtins!  Yeah, you're probably
> right that we don't need to worry about adding new functionality in this
> area.  So far, a small (Florida-style) majority seems to favor BIFs rather
> than infix operators, and so using the MI builtins should be no more
> difficult for the average RPG programmer.  Perhaps it's not even worth
> including in the next enhancement survey.
> 
> Cheers!  Hans
> 
> Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.com
> 
> +---
> | 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
> +---
+---
| 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
+---

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

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.