Re: CF-Spec - another call for opinions

Bob,

> I definitely want a vote AGAINST option 4!!!

Hey, Bob, you found something we can agree on regarding CF!  Option 1
would be (IMHO) much preferable than option 4.  I don't like option 3
either, as it could lead to some unnatural future opcodes.

I still like option 2 best, and think that implied EVAL and CALLP can
be unambiguously determined from the context in almost every case.

I think the only ambiguous context would be an implicit CALLP to a
subprocedure with no agruments passed, where the name matched a
current or future opcode with no operands.  (Such as Iter or Leave.)
This is why I suggested appending () to ensure it would continue to
always be recognized as a subprocedure call regardless of future
opcodes.

Note that new opcodes which require operands (i.e., almost every one)
would still not be ambiguous since the presence/abscense of "=" vs
operands vs arguments would allow you to easily determine if you are
dealing with an opcode, target variable, or subprocedure name.

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