|
Evan Harris wrote: > > Hi Scott > > The original thread (which I think I started) was based on the premise that: > > EVAL Variable = Variable + 5 > > is, in my opinion at least, > > much more readable and obvious than > > variable += 5 > I really don't get that argument ??? I can understand if you prefer not to use += but to state that the eval statement is "much more readable and obvious" Just isn't so. I would assume that the reason that += only costs $2 is because it IS the same as the ADD op code which already exists. That's all it is ADD VARA VARB VARB += VARA same thing If anything is more prone to confusion it is the ADD op code example ADD VARA VARB /* add VARA to VARB and place result in VARB but what does the following do ? VARC ADD VARA VARB Does it add VARC to VARA to VARB and place the result in VARB ??? Why or why not ? Oh because - that's right !! > So far the major argument for providing this syntax has been to save > typing: if there is another argument I'd be more than interested to hear it > as I really cannot see what it adds to any language. As per Richard's > comments it seems it arose from a design decision due to limitations of the > past - just as the columnar RPG format was rooted in its origins. No the major improvement is readability. > > I agree with your statements regarding RPG syntax not necessarily being > obvious to the uninitiated, but it seems to me that += etc is just more of > the same from a different language. To make it clear where I am coming > from, would you want indicator logic added to C ? Why add something to RPG > that adds nothing content-wise merely additional form ? Indicator logic may be a poor example since newer versions of RPG are eliminating them. But I would like to see some of the better features of RPG added back into C > > Excuse my ignorance if I get this wrong (I have no more than a passing > acquaintance with C) but in the above example what would be the effect of: > > variable =+ 5 > > Would it (as I understand it) assign 5 to the variable rather than > incrementing it by 5 ? What are the side-effects (bad choice of words > possibly) of other incorrectly typed terse assignments ? And what is the > effect on debugging to those that are not proficient with this style of > expression ? > Should be an illegal expression. But even if its not it would be the equivalent of using a z-add instead of an add. > These days when I code I like to think that I am coding for "whoever comes > next" and that they will (hopefully) be impressed with how easy it is to > maintain or (god forbid) debug - not by having to refer to the manual to > understand indicators, cycles, expressions or whatever. > Let's face it the argument is truly about what you are used to seeing. If someone can master all of the EXISTING quirks of RPG then one more "op code" (+=) won't make any difference one way or another. It would be nice to have but it won't be the end of the world if they don't add it. Oh well - have a good one :) John Hall +--- | 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 +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact copyright@midrange.com.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.