|
Joe, >But there's still the too many extenders issue. I >can see that as a problem. One you'd rarely run into, but a problem >nonetheless. The point was that it was not as simple as reusing the EXACT SAME parsing already in the compiler, as you suggested. >How often does this happen in your code, Doug? I'm still on V5R1, so it has never happened to me yet. And granted, I don't expect it ever would in my style of coding. But that is not the rules IBM must play by. They have to take into consideration all kinds of things which don't matter to me in my little world of only working with USA based companies. >Beside (and keep this between you and me) but the idea of sticking precision >rules in the opcode never seemed like a very good idea. I'd prefer BIFs: >%HALF(x), %PREC(x: {*DEFAULT}|*RESULT). That way I have fine-grained >control over the entire statement. Well there is %DEC() vs %DECH(), %INT() vs %INTH(), etc >> And you'd need to add a semi-colon to the end of the statement >Not true. Just use the line continuation conventions already used in eval >statements. Which is basically, if the next line doesn't have an opcode, >it's a continuation. I'll let Hans answer this if he cares too, or else just go back to the archives where he has explained it in the past. It is not that simple to avoid ambiguities. Doug
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.