Re: CF-Spec - another call for opinions

Doug,

At 08:02 PM 8/11/99 GMT, you wrote:

>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?  

 I agree w/ this one, if possible.

>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.

 This one would probably be a little more difficult, since operational
extenders follow the same format.

>As I've said before, I am very pleased with the openness and response
>we're getting by having your participation here Hans (and your
>colleagues).  Keep up the good work!

 DITTO!

 -mark

+---
| 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
+---