RE: programming language genealogy

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Douglas Handy
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 7:03 PM
To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: programming language genealogy

>>>I dont.  ...  /free was a bit step
>>>forward because it added a lot of procedure call features to the mix
while
>>>retaining the OS related stuff.

>>No, I meant what I said.  with /free you have a lot more room to operate

>How does that equate to "it added a lot of procedure call features to the
mix"?

>> Longer, more
>>descriptive procedure names, qualified data structure field names, nested
>>procedures.

>All of which are available without using /free too.  So again, just how did
this
>add "a lot of procedure call features to the mix"?

>I'll be the first to rally the cause of finally getting /free -- I was one
of
>the proponents for it to be the base syntax for RPG IV -- but I don't see
the
>connection to adding procedure call features.  We've had longer procedure
names
>since what, V3R7?  Nested procedure names since V3R2/V3R6.  And qualified
data
>structure field names are not limited to /free either.

Doug,

I guess it is just nuance.  I am finding that long procedure names ( 20
characters ) allow me to develop a reasonable naming convention for my
procs.  Kind of the same thing with qualified data structure flds.  Without
the extra line space of /free the long names were too much of a bother.

and the proc return value:
  xxx = Proc( a: b: c ) ;
is only allowed in /free, right?

-Steve