• Subject: Re: QCMDEXC question
  • From: Mark Lazarus <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:19:18
  • In-Reply-To: <41256599.00582312.00@eurh01.intentia.se>

Bruce,

At 01:39 PM 1/21/98 CST, you wrote:

>After some investigation prompted by David's initial note, here is what
>appears to be happening.

 Thanks for the explanation.  Now it makes sense.

> A second approach was to "instruct" CL to expect
>a pointer on the stack rather than a data value.  And how is this done?
>By defining the return value as a char(2) (or greater) which indicates
>a pointer is being used, and then substring out the first byte to get
>the char(1) referenced by the pointer.

> This is a workaround that doesn't follow the language convention (or spec,
>for that matter).

>While one might argue the pros and cons of choices 1 and 2 above, #2
>was selected for what appeared to be valid reasons at that time.

 I don't know the exact ratios of programs coded in each language on the
/400, but for argument sake, let's say 80% RPG, 15% Cobol and 5% all other
(including C!)  CL (based on number of programs) is probably used almost as
much as all other programs combined.  To prototype and continue to
perpetuate (read: inflict!) the idiosyncracies (sp?) of C upon the primary
languages on the /400 seems wrong and s/b corrected.  I'm sure the guys in
the labs can come up w/ a good solution.

>I don't believe I would necessarily classify this as a CL shortcoming;
>for sure ILE CL is not considered a language of minimal usage that is
>not being "fixed" and enhanced.

 I have to disagree w/ both of the above statements.

1)  How can you say that a bug w/ a workaround is not a shortcoming?  And
yes, it is a bug!

    There may have been a valid reason for the introduction of the bug, but
that doesn't diminish the importance of fixing it.

2a) CL was added at the eleventh hour as an ILE offering.

2b) The only enhancements to the CL language (as a language, additional
commands don't count) in quite a few years are ILE and the %BIN()function.

  This does not sound like IBM is serious about enhancing CL.
In order to make it a decent langauge w/ the "basics", IBM would have to
add loop control, subroutines, multiple file access, file add / update
ability, additional variable types.  There are many other items that
have been requested over the years, but we have not received.  Are you
aware of any planned enhancements in CL?

>Bruce Vining (wondering what kind of response the messenger will get on
>this one)

 You asked for it!! :-)   :-)

 -mark

+---
| 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 MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2021 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.