Re: MOVE opcode in freeform (was Strange behavior w/%editc)

Hans,

I can appreciate where you're coming from. The available resources are
limited, and this particular wheel hasn't been squeaking very much.

Personally, I'm a little perplexed as to why I seem to be the only one that
ever brings it up. Maybe it's because there just aren't that many of us
doing ILE development yet. Or maybe the concept hasn't been clearly
explained to those unfamiliar with languages other than RPG. Is anyone on
the list unsure of what we're talking about here?


John Taylor

----- Original Message -----
From: <boldt@ca.ibm.com>
To: <rpg400-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: MOVE opcode in freeform (was Strange behavior w/%editc)


> John wrote:
> >One of the things preventing this from happening is the limitations of
the
> >language with respect to the shared namespace. In order for me to use a
> >publicly available service program with RPG, I have to hope that the
> >author's naming convention doesn't clash with my own internal standards.
> >Qualified procedure names would go a long way towards making your wish
> come
> >true.
>
> I would accept that argument IF people complained about namespace
> collision.
>
> I do agree that there should be some mechanism to qualify
> procedure names, but until there's a consensus that a solution is
> needed, we can't really justify the enhancement.
>
> No, I think you have to look elsewhere for excuses for the lack
> of a "Comprehensive RPG Archive for Modules and Procedures".
> (Please someone come up with a better acronym than that!)
>
> Cheers!  Hans
>
> Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.com