Re: CF-Spec - another call for opinions

Hi Hans -

>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.

I'll agree with Doug's comments quoted above and just add ...

Make sure in the parsing when there is no EVAL or CALLP, if you find
parenthesis after the name to still go ahead and get the next token,
so as to be able to properly detect an array element assignment.

Ken
Southern Wine and Spirits of Nevada, Inc.


+---
| 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