RE: %EOF, %FOUND and the infamous Dow loop

Joe,

You got this one "extremely right", in my book anyway.

Especially:  "AGH!  I can't believe this.  This is unacceptable.  I don't
quite understand when it was that it became acceptable practice to remove
functionality when moving to a new release, but this is just ridiculous."

I think we're both more concerned with when it's gonna end, than when it
became acceptable practice...  The answer to both revolves around dollars
and priorities, I'd guess.

jt



| -----Original Message-----
| From: rpg400-l-admin@midrange.com [mailto:rpg400-l-admin@midrange.com]On
| Behalf Of Joe Pluta
| Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 4:51 PM
| To: rpg400-l@midrange.com
| Subject: RE: %EOF, %FOUND and the infamous Dow loop
|
|
| > From: Martin Rowe
| >
| > The downside is not being able to view/change the %BIF
| > value directly when in debug.
|
| AGH!  I can't believe this.  This is unacceptable.  I don't quite
| understand
| when it was that it became acceptable practice to remove
| functionality when
| moving to a new release, but this is just ridiculous.  If you're going to
| recommend that we use a BIF, spend a few lousy hours of
| development time to
| put support in the debugger.  The people who are going to
| actually write the
| code (and hence the ones who will or will not embrace the new syntax) are
| the ones who use the debugger.  Anything you add to the language
| that is NOT
| supported in the debugger is, in my mind, not supported at all.
|
| The fact that ISDB is gone is bad enough.  I'll live with STRDBG,
| since it's
| at least cross-language capable.  But how many development hours would it
| have taken to add BIF support to the Eval operation of the debugger.  The
| information is available, it's simply a little extra parsing.  A couple of
| hours, tops, one would think.
|
| Ah well, I'm not going to bitch and moan today.  I'm busy trying to get my
| stuff working.  I'll worry about BIF and his buddies a little later.
|
| Joe