RE: X-Spec (was: "RPG isn't cool")

[Buck Calabro <mcalabro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hans,
  Here's my not so humble opinion:
>I would like to ask those interested to offer opinions on the
>following design question:  To what extent should the fixed-form
>opcodes participate in the new scheme?  It is possible to support
>all except 9 or 10 opcodes. (Most of these require resulting
>indicators, which are not allowed in the CF-Spec).  But other
>opcodes fall into a number of general groups:

I would argue that we don't need the fixed form opcodes at all in the CF
spec.  The fixed C spec would still exist, so we wouldn't be losing
anything, and future versions could add the BIF's we need to do all the
string handling.  In the interim, we could code the mainline with CF specs,
and put the fixed C spec stuff in procedures, where the data manipulation
should probably be anyway...

Buck Calabro

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@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
+---