RE: Free form code suggestion

[James Rich <james@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Mike Haston ** Data wrote:

> If you need /free and /end-free tags "all over the place" then you
> couldn't use this all source alternative anyway, could you?  But if your
> code does fall into this criteria, then you'd just have to use one /free
> and one /end and that doesn't seem like too much coding.  Or am I
> missing something?

[snip]

> Would it be feasible to introduce a control specification keyword to
> indicate that ALL source statements within a given member (and/or
> /copy'd in) are free-form statements? The idea would be to eliminate the
> requirement for /FREE and /END-FREE tags all over the place.

Actually, since no C spec is allowed when using free form, why not
dispense with /free, /endfree altogether and let lines that do not have
the C specified be free form and those that do be fixed?  The C shouldn't
be required since there are no free form F, D, I, O, and P specs.  At such
a time that there are, there should be simple ways of determining them.
That way we could alleviate Joe's big complaint about the MOVE opcode.
You could just code this:

   if(freeform = TRUE);
C               MOVE    A       B
   endif;

James Rich