|
Hans! no apology necessary! As long as I know how, and can count on consistant behaviour, I'm all for it! The only problem I had was the implicit definition of the pointer variable. I very much like the technique we've been rangling with over the past week or so. Now that I know how and why pointers work, I'm glad to have them. don't leave ALL the geeky stuff to the system geeks! we application programmers like to think we can handle anything you system guys throw our way! Rick --original message-- Hans sez: Barbara wrote: >Rick, it's a "feature" of the ILE RPG compiler, that you don't have to >explicitly define a basing pointer. It's not an accidental feature, but >it was misguided in my unofficial-not-speaking-for-IBM opinion. Well, that was probably my fault. From under my own unoffical- not-speaking-for-IBM hat (which I normally wear anyways), I regret adding a couple of specific features to the RPG IV language. The more I think about it, the more I think adding pointers to the language was a bad idea. Pointers belong in systems programming languages, not languages intended for application programming. Pointers are basically the "goto" of data structures. Cheers! Hans Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.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 [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.