RE: Additional RPGLE Enhancement Requests

Hans,

If you would have finished expression support we could have been doing 
stuff like this

D  Combined         30A
D   Field1                 OVERLAY(Combined:1)
D   Field2                 OVERLAY(Combined:%size(field1)+1)
D   Field3                 OVERLAY(Combined:%size(field1)+%size(field2)+1)

Then, we'd be asking you to allow us to use an argument like *NEXT instead 
of that long expression. Thank goodness you didn't let us do that. ;-)



Bob Cozzi


On Wednesday, July 16, 1997 7:25 AM, Hans Boldt [SMTP:hboldt@VNET.IBM.COM] 
wrote:
> Charlie Massoglia, Massoglia Technical Consulting, Inc.
> > Thanks for your interest Hans!
>
> Well, it won't be too long before we have to start thinking seriously
> about the next release!
>
>
> > >
> > >For example, to take your example above (which I believe overlays
> > >externally described fields consecutively over some subfield), this
> > >could be achieved by something like the following enhancement:
> > >
> > >    D  Combined         30A
> > >    D   Field1                 OVERLAY(Combined:1)
> > >    D   Field2                 OVERLAY(Combined:*NEXT)
> > >    D   Field3                 OVERLAY(Combined:*NEXT)
> > >
> > *NEXT is even better and accomplishes the goal, eliminating database
> > dependencies.  Of course, the length of the field combined is still
> > hardcoded.  What happens when the combined lengths of Field1, Field2, 
and
> > Field3 change to something other than 30.  We still have to manually 
change
> > the length of the field combined.  That still remains an unnecessary
> > database dependency.
> >
> > Please do not misunderstand, if *NEXT is easy to do, please do it even 
if we
> > still have to hardcode the length of Combined.  You can tackle that 
problem
> > later.
> >
> > RPG IV should NEVER require you to code a database dependency.
>
> > >So, unless we have more compelling reasons for full expressions in
> > >D-Specs, it will probably have to wait a while.
> > >
> > >BTW, we also want to relax the rule that requires OVERLAY to overlay
> > >a subfield.  We are thinking at least of allowing a subfield to 
overlay
> > >the data structure name.
> > >
> > Please! Please! Please!  (John Carr will also like this one.)
> > >
>
> The reason I mentioned the idea of relaxed OVERLAY rules is that the
> combination of relaxed OVERLAY rules and OVERLAY(x:*NEXT) should go a
> long way in avoiding database dependencies.  Consider the following
> data structure:
>
>    D  Combined     DS
>    D   Field1                 OVERLAY(Combined:1)
>    D   Field2                 OVERLAY(Combined:*NEXT)
>    D   Field3                 OVERLAY(Combined:*NEXT)
>
> The data structure name COMBINED is implicitly defined with a length
> that is the sum of the subfield lengths!
>
> I just had another wild and crazy idea:  How about if we implicitly
> define overlayed subfields with the appropriate length to contain all
> overlaying subfields?  (I'm not sure if I can convince the rest of my
> team on this one, though!)
>
>
> > What about multi-dimensional arrays?
>
> This one's been on the back burner for years now, as you know.
> Considering the amount of work required, we've always considered other
> items to be more "bang for the buck".  Who knows when this will filter
> up the priority list!
>
>
> Cheers!  Hans
>
> Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, hboldt@vnet.ibm.com
>



Bob Cozzi
Bob@rpgdev.net
http://www.rpgdev.net


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the Midrange System Mailing List!  To submit a new message,   *
* send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe from     *
* this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify            *
* 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.  Questions      *
* should be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *