× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Re: RPG IV and CF-spec "keep it IBM"
  • From: dhandy@xxxxxxxxxxx (Douglas Handy)
  • Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 04:56:32 GMT

Bob,

>Hans and Co. have said that most (all?) new function in RPG IV will be in
>the area of the Extended Factor 2/built-in functions. Are they now going to
>say that the new features in RPG IV are going to in both the CF-spec and the
>current EVAL/IF style C spec? Or is new stuff going to only be introduced
>exclusively in the CF-spec?

I don't want to put words in Hans' mouth, but since you asked me I'll
respond.

The way I see it, the CF spec is merely an alternate syntax for the
current extended factor 2 syntax.  Any new BIFs added, including BIFs
which can take the place of opcodes (eg %scan) code be coded in either
CF or in a C-spec factor 2.  I can't think of any reason why it would
ever be necessary to restrict any new expression or BIF to CF instead
of also allowing it in EVAL or whatever.

OTOH, I can see new functions only being supported in expressions,
whether CF or C extended factor 2.  For example, if multi-dimensional
array support was added, I can see perhaps limiting it to expressions
because even with the wider field widths of RPG IV there are still
space constraints with the fixed-format opcodes.

>If I (as a developer, not just me but others) can completing disregard the
>CF spec and still use ALL new function in RPG IV, then I could consider the
>notion. 

See, there is hope for you yet. <g>

Besides, you could always code the CF in columns 6-7, then skip to
column 26 then 36 to make your code align with the rest of the C
specs.

>Again I ask the question, is moving to the CF-spec going to make my subfile
>look better, provide a GUI on the AS/400, or make the CHAIN operation code
>work faster?

No.  Neither will it make your user interface look worse or your
program slower.

You say you write mostly in C++ today.  I have a question for you:

Do you indent your C++ code?  Why or why not?  If not, why do you
think some people prefer to indent C++ code?

Doug

(If you want, you can consider the question rhetorical.  I think you
get my point.)
+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---END



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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.