Re: %TLOOKUP -- RPG400-L

× 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.

I understand what you're saying. It's just that we suspect that tables are relics of an older era, and that there's not much need to do much with them. Functionally, there's nothing that you can do with tables that you can't also do with arrays. And since arrays are so much more powerful anyways, why bother limiting yourself by using a table?

On the other hand, if there really is some overwhelmingly compelling reason that tables should be enhanced, I'm all ears!

Cheers! Hans

mlazarus@xxxxxxxx wrote:

Hans,

 Since keywords are now required in the D specs to define alternate tables,
are there plans to relax this?  When we were only allowed 6 characters I
didn't like it since it chewed up half of the allowable name.  Now I just
don't like it since it interferes w/ my naming conventions and is
superfluous.

-mark


Original Message:
-----------------
From: Hans Boldt boldt@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:39:00 -0400
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: %TLOOKUP

Yes.

mlazarus@xxxxxxxx wrote:

Hans,

Is the TABxxxxx prefix still a requirement when specifying tables?

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.