Re: Thanks! (was: CF-Spec - another call for opinions)

["James W. Kilgore" <qappdsn@xxxxxxx>]

Hans,

I just read your post and saw, but have not yet read, the gazillion responses.
;-)

DON'T YOU DARE CHANGE reade TO read:e !!!

Now I don't mind, and fully appreciate, all you do to make life easier for
application writers like myself, but when you bring up something that would
require a revisit to half a gazillion programs you've got my attention.  And not
in a good way.

Now you may be talking about  a "CF" specific read:e vs your plain vanilla "C"
spec reade but even that stinks.  Now we have two ways of saying reade? No, no,
no.

Now, just between you me and the fence post, are you trying to get overly
"clever" in the compiler and throwing in a ":" would save you a whole bunch of
coding?  Are we getting into the late summer doldrums? <g>

boldt@ca.ibm.com wrote:

> Thanks for your responses, everyone!

<snip>

> 1) Require parens always on CALLP statements on the
>    CF-Spec; and
> 2) Delimit opcode extenders on the CF-Spec using some
>    different character other than parens, such as the
>    colon.
>

+---
| 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
+---