RE: Free Form RPG Opinions Wanted

> From: Buck Calabro
>
> Joe, you're being a naughty boy.

Oh, as if THAT'S unusual.  But come to think of it, I now recall something
the %kds syntax in particular and wondering about it.  Didn't like it at the
time, don't like it now.  <grin>


> I can think of one: A BIF that supports a /free enhanced opcode.  An
example
> of this is %KDS which can hold the keylist for the /free CHAIN.

I'm going to go with you on this one for a second, but bear with me.


>> As to new opcodes, I'd have to see them, but I'm again
>> of the mind that anything that can fit into free-form
>> can fit into an RPG IV expression.

> The enhanced CHAIN is an example.  Factor one in columnar format isn't
large
> enough to specify a list of fields, but in /free form there is.

Why can't there be a version of CHAIN (perhaps with an extender, such as
CHAIN(x) for "extended") that fits into the extended C-spec syntax?  The
rest of the free-form line can fit into the extended Factor 2.  Tell me what
the difficulty is there, since all the parsing is already written for the
free form code.  And isn't reuse the word of the day?

Because if you do that, then your earlier argument doesn't hold, does it?

On the other hand, if you don't extend the syntax, this becomes the classic
case of building an argument on a shaky foundation.  Rather than addressing
the underlying issue and fixing it (by making any freeform statement fit
into a fixed-format extended C-spec), you end up with a rickety dual-version
structure of the language.

How rude!

Joe