RE: What the compiler does, or not?

James wrote:
>("move would have had to have existed" - that's got to be a clunky use
>of passive voice and the subjunctive.  How can we make that sentence
>better...?)

In order to take it away, free-form RPG must have supported MOVE. Since it 
never 
did, it was never taken away.

Better ...?

Joe wrote:
>I don't want to nit-pick.  And you are not designing RPG, you are
>maintaining it.  Enhancing to be sure, but maintaining it nonetheless.  You
>are its caretaker, and you are absolutely, incontrovertibly beholden to the
>mass of legacy programmers who use the language that you have been entrusted
>with.  Bjourne Stroustrop you are not.

I really hope you don't break anything climbing off that high horse of yours. 
Do 
you need a step-ladder to climb on or do you just take a running jump?

Hans is not Bjarne (note the correct spelling of his name) and just as well. 
Hans and Barbara et al are improving the language. One view is that Bjarne 
didn't improve C, he just made it more complex and troublesome by trying to 
reuse a base language when he should have started from scratch. Sun, too, 
should 
have tossed the ugly C syntax when developing Java. At least they took the OO 
behaviour from Smalltalk.  RPGIV is not dissimilar in that the base form is an 
improved version of RPG III but it has more scope as we move into the advanced 
components the language.

The "mass of legacy programmers" can continue to work just as they always have. 
They can say with RPG III or move to RPG IV and stay in fixed form. They are 
not 
forced to use free-form but if they choose to move to free-form then they gain 
significant advantages at the expense of doing some things a little 
differently. 
If they move to free-form then they are no longer legacy (and that is such a 
misuse of that word) but part of the brave new world.

>Hans, thanks, but I really don't need you to clarify my programming.  I have
>written hundreds of application programs in use in hundreds of sites around
>the world.  My code is scrutinized on a daily basis by thousands of end
>users, and it's perfectly clear.  Clearer than yours, I think.  I wouldn't
>want you in my shop making my code clear when your idea of clarity is this:

Ah yes. The man from SSA. I can think of dozens of programmers who would regard 
code from SSA as far from the epitomy of good RPG style. I hope your current 
coding practices no longer reflect your heritage.

>That is not clear to anybody who doesn't understand the edit codes of RPG as
>well as the syntax of RPG BIF calls.  They have to at the very least use a
>reference manual to identify the exact meaning of the cryptic '4'.

Anyone editing RPG IV should understand those things. They might not understand 
when they first encounter them but that's no different from a new programmer 
encountering an unfamiliar op-code in any language. If they were all 
immediately 
obvious IBM would not have to provide a reference manual. Now you might argue 
that MOVE is obvious but as we've seen here previously some aspects of MOVE are 
unclear from the code until you know the data types of the variables involved.

There is also an argument that MOVE is a bad choice of name because it doesn't 
move anything. It copies bytes. It is also a seriously overloaded op-code: it 
converts between character and numeric, converts between character and UCS-2, 
converts date, time, timestamp data, ignores decimal alignment on numeric 
moves, 
etc.  Also, if I were a COBOL programmer I would be surprised by an RPG MOVE 
not 
padding with blanks. A more consistent replacement for MOVE is long overdue.

In this era where programmers are expected to know more than one language it is 
helpful when those languages exhibit similar behaviour. The intent of the 
assignment operator in an EVAL, or in free-form, is clearer than the MOVE 
op-code, and that knowledge is transferable to other languages.

So the simple fact is that a programmer is expected to know what is happening 
with each op-code or BIF. If they encounter an unfamiliar feature of the 
language then they should refer to the reference manual and have a learning 
experience.

>Seriously, I don't want you changing our language.  Enhance it, fine, but
>don't make it "clear", please.  If you want to "design" your own language,
>do an open source project or something.  Let us working stiffs be.

That's not your call. You have input, you can express your requirements, but 
the 
implementation is not up to you. The last count was four so I make five people 
who disagree with you about MOVE versus the alternative. RPG IV has changed the 
language--both in the syntax and in the style of the resulting code. I don't 
like everything Toronto has done in creating RPG IV but on the whole it is a 
significant improvement over earlier dialects. That improvement is due to the 
efforts of the compiler team with input from the users of the language. 
However, 
Toronto have final say and they choose to do some things because they have a 
better idea of what will be happening to the language in the future.

So you can't use MOVE in free-form? Get over it!  Sometimes I think the only 
reason you carp so much about free-form RPG is that it forces you to write yet 
another parser for your web product.

Regards,
Simon Coulter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
   FlyByNight Software         AS/400 Technical Specialists       
                                                                  
   http://www.flybynight.com.au/                                  
   Phone: +61 3 9419 0175   Mobile: +61 0411 091 400        /"\   
   Fax:   +61 3 9419 0175   mailto: shc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   \ /   
                                                             X    
                 ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail  / \   
--------------------------------------------------------------------