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

["Joe Teff" <jteff19@xxxxxxx>]

>Thanks for your responses, everyone!  The discussion
>has been very useful for us, with some responses very
>close to what we've come up with.
>
>We've done a bit more brainstorming, and we think we've
>hit on another alternative that we think everyone will
>be happy with.  In a nutshell, we believe that we can
>achieve release to release compatibility with two
>changes to our design:
>
>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.
>
>Basically, if the first string of characters in the spec
>is followed by "(", it is either an EVAL or CALLP; by
>"=", it is an EVAL; otherwise, it is an opcode.
>
>So, here's what our toy example looks like:
>
>    CF KeepLooping = *ON
>    CF dow KeepLooping
>    CF    read:e MasterFile
>    CF    if %eof
>    CF       HandleEndOfFile()
>    CF    endif
>    CF enddo
>
>Cheers!  Hans
>
>Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.com

I am assuming that read:e is actually coded as READ(E) now and not
the READE Op Code. I have to say that I do not care for the colon
idea whether it's code page friendly or not. I guess I would rather see
CALLP and EVAL required rather than change the current syntax. I am
still in favor of the CF-spec even though I highly respect Bob's views and
appreciate his efforts and influence over the language.

Joe Teff


+---
| 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
+---