|
I see the argument against being able to assign a %BIF. However, if you're debugging a fully optimized program, results WILL be inconsistent... So a precedent exists. I would RARELY assign a value to the %BIF, but when I do, it will probably come in "handy"... (Couldn't resist...;-) "Keft"...?!? Doug, you gotta recall that all of us are mere mortals and some of us didn't get much schooling. jt | -----Original Message----- | Behalf Of jpcarr@tredegar.com | Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 6:34 PM | | | >I'd agree the ability to display the return value of a BIF and even user | defined | >function from the debug command line would be welcome.> | > | >Attempting to make the debugger accept a function (including BIF) on the | *keft* | >side of the equal sign seems like a Pandora's box. IMHO. | >Doug | | | | I agree Doug, I was playing Devil's advocate. | We all know that if Toronto gave us | | EVAL %EOF(FILE) | | Someone would ask for | | EVAL %EOF(FILE) = '1' | | Saying, "Well, I can do a EVAL *IN50 = '1' | Where *IN50 is a result indicator on the READ. | | I don't agree but I think someone would "Demand it" as being | "Consistent behavior". | | That is the type of feedback Toronto gets from "It's Users" | | Just like we get ambiguous requirements from "Our Users" | | John | | P.S. keft eh? |
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 [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.