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

James wrote:
>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>

No no no!  We're not changing anything in existing function!
And even in the CF-Spec, we're not changing READE to READ:E.
"READ:E" on the CF-Spec is opcode READ with extender E.

Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.com


+---
| 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
+---