Re: ANDing and ORing conditional compilation directives

Simon,

As soon as I saw the number variants for each (when they were introduced), that design decision irked me. I have no problem separating the LOOKUP and TLOOKUP functionality.

IIRC, the TRIMx variants do exist in other languages, but I don't think any other language has the LOOKUPxx variants.

-mark


At 7/20/08 05:57 PM, you wrote:

On 21/07/2008, at 5:55 AM, M. Lazarus wrote:

> I have run into this limitation, and would very much like IBM to
> add in OR capability to compiler directives.

Perhaps we need to open a DCR?

> Aren't the LOOKUPxx / TLOOKUPxx opcodes far more egregious than the
> TRIMx opcodes, when it comes to implementation?


They certainly extend the ugliness but I think the rot started with %
TRIMx. Once that sort of design error has been made it becomes easier
to perpetuate it. I concede that %TLOOKUP may add some documentation
value (i.e., obvious that you're processing a TABLE) but the various
xx variants could have been replaced with a parameter selecting *EQ,
*GT, etc.

Regards,
Simon Coulter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FlyByNight Software OS/400, i5/OS Technical Specialists

http://www.flybynight.com.au/
Phone: +61 2 6657 8251 Mobile: +61 0411 091 400 /"\
Fax: +61 2 6657 8251 \ /
X
ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail / \
--------------------------------------------------------------------