Re: CF-Spec - another call for opinions

["Dan Bale" <dbale@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hans,

IMHO, you're opening a can of worms!  I really don't see the benefit other than
"it would be nice if..."  My vote: Option 1.

But, of your other offerings...

DEFINATELY NOT OPTION 4!  PLEASE!!!

Option 2 doesn't seem to address future compatibility concerns.  Don't like this
one.

Option 3 seems like the best one you offered (as far as changing the "current"
spec).  However, currently we are allowed to define variable names the same as
opcodes.  Would you be able to handle:
     CF   MOVE = 'A'
and then also do:
     CF   MOVE  X   Z
???

Other possibility:  in the realm of option 3, perhaps you (the RPG labs people)
could restrict future op codes to always be less than 'n' characters long and
never contain a non-alphabetic character.  I, as a developer, could choose to
use special characters or always specify variable names and/or procedures whose
names are greater than 'n' characters long.   Just an idea.  I'd still stick
with option 1.

Regards,
Dan Bale





+---
| 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