Re: Bitwise ops in RPG

[boldt@xxxxxxxxxx]

Doug wrote:
>So far I've seen two votes for the BIF version (at least in what has made
it
>back to me thus far).
>
>Did you realize that V4R2 (or so) added MI builtins which, for all
practical
>purposes, already give you the equivalent function with nearly identical
syntax
>to the BIF version aside from the name?  The only real thing the BIF would
>change is add documentation in the RPG manual, and drop the need to
prototype
>the MI builtins (which can be included via /COPY).  Barbara Morris has
posted
>sample code in the past using the builtins.
>
>I'm not adverse to adding the BIFs, presumming they are fast for you to
add.
>But as a general rule I prefer you to add things I can't already do.  I
suspect
>this would cost so little of my $100 that I wouldn't vote against it, but
it
>wouldn't be very high on my list either.

Actually, I was not aware of those V4R2 MI builtins!  Yeah, you're probably
right that we don't need to worry about adding new functionality in this
area.  So far, a small (Florida-style) majority seems to favor BIFs rather
than infix operators, and so using the MI builtins should be no more
difficult for the average RPG programmer.  Perhaps it's not even worth
including in the next enhancement survey.

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
+---