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

Why even keep a type code of CF it would be great to assume if there is not
code then it is free format like in cl and add the // for comment also. Or
even add a begin cf and an end cf but please get rid of the cf requirement
on each line

> 1) IFxx, DOWxx, etc.  There are currently expression alternatives
>    for these, so why bother carrying these forward in the new
>    scheme.  Do we support these in the CF-Spec?  ie. Do we allow
>    code like:  " CF   ifeq counter 17 "?

No we can use the expression alternatives
>
> 2) String ops:  SCAN, SUBST, XLATE, etc.  There are expression
>    or BIF alternatives (or will be) for most (possibly all) of
>    these.  Do we support these opcodes in the CF-Spec?

we can use the BIF alternatives and would rather see you finish the missing
ones
>
> 3) Move ops:  MOVE, MOVEL.  You could code EVAL/EVALR for many
>    moves, but not all MOVEs are easily convertible to the EVAL
>    statement.  Do we support MOVEs in the CF-Spec?  (If not, we
>    would have to add additional new BIFs, which still wouldn't
>    cover all of MOVE semantics.)

until you have a replacement for move I sugest keeping it around

>
> 4) Arithmetic ops:  ADD, SUB, etc.  As many have already
>    discovered, arithmetic in expressions is not totally
>    compatible with arithmetic in the fixed opcodes.  Do we
>    support these in the CF-Spec?  ie.  Do we allow code
>    like:  " CF  add 1 counter "?

no standard  counter = counter + 1 or counter ++ 1


+---
| 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
+---