Re: CF-Spec - another call for opinions

[dhandy@xxxxxxxxxxx (Douglas Handy)]

Hans,

>please consider and choose one of the following options:

My vote is for #2:  Allow EVAL and CALLP to be omitted:

>Note that we're not really making the opcode names reserved since 
>we'd still allow "CF eval read = x", and in fact, coding EVAL would be
>required if the target variable name is the same as an opcode name. 

Is it really necessary to require the EVAL when the target variable
name matches an opcode?  It may be a little easier to code on your
end, but this potential problem with future code would be circumvented
if this was not a strict requirement.

How hard would it be for the parser to check the next token to see if
it was "=" before deciding if you were dealing with an assumed EVAL or
an opcode?  

And for Callp, my suggestion is to require the trailing () when
omitting the Callp on a subprocedure with no arguments.  This would
safeguard the code against a future opcode by the same name, if the
presence of () would make you treat it as an implicit CALLP instead of
an opcode.

Of course, it is easy for me to sit here and tell you what I think
should be simple to implement.  So, if you say the EVAL and CALLP need
to be required, I'll be content with what you can give us.

As I've said before, I am very pleased with the openness and response
we're getting by having your participation here Hans (and your
colleagues).  Keep up the good work!

Doug
+---
| 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