RE: Bitwise ops in RPG (was: Re: Determining *DS4 support)

Maybe it's just familiarity, but I vote infix.  

BTW, is this something seriously considered for a future release? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boldt@ca.ibm.com [mailto:boldt@ca.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 11:19 AM
> To: rpg400-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Bitwise ops in RPG (was: Re: Determining *DS4 support)
> 
> 
> 
> Jim wrote:
> >If you do create a bitwise AND please do not make the token 'AND' but
> >some other symbols, perhaps C's '&&'.  It gets very 
> confusing when AND
> >is both bitwise and logical.  Code that looks like it should 
> work either
> >doesn't or is intermittent, but it still compiles with AND 
> as both bitwise
> >and logical.  Especially if you allow IF statements to become true on
> >non *zero values.  That's my biggest complaint with Basic.
> 
> But of course!  AND and OR should only ever refer to the logical
> operations.  Otherwise, severe ambiguities would result.
> 
> This begs the question:  What syntax would you prefer for bitwise
> operations?
> 
> a) infix operators:
>       x ANDB y
>       x ORB y
>       x XORB y
>       NOTB y
> 
>    (&& and || (like in C) are problematical for us since '|' is
>    not in the invariant EBCDIC code page.)
> 
> b) built-in functions:
>       %BITAND(x:y)
>       %BITOR(x:y)
>       %BITXOR(x:y)
>       %BITNOT(x)
> 
> Cheers!  Hans
> 
> 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
+---