Re: RPG V?

[Rory Hewitt <roryhewitt@xxxxxxxxx>]

Amen to that Duane. Like you, I *like* the fixed-formatting of the various
'definition' specs (F, D, I). I can choose to use my own indenting as I see
fit.

Like Kurt, I've never had a problem with the colon as a separator. Now
obviously I'm hoping that if IBM does allow a comma as a separator, it will
be a case of 'allow' rather than 'force', perhaps through the use of a
H-spec keyword or similar. Come to that, they could just use blanks, like in
CL (kidding - that would be a bad idea, in my book, although the use of
keywords for basic definitions will make RPG look more like CL anwyway).

I understand why they use the semi-colon as a delimiter and I have no
problem with it.

The only things I'd like to see in terms of the basics would be very minor -
the removal of /FREE and /END-FREE, not forcing us to include a PR spec for
a main procedure and stuff like that. Procedure overloading would be nice,
but it's not a requirement for me. Frankly there are precious few real
limitations of the language - what it doesn't provide, we can easily add
ourselves.

Rory

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Christen, Duane
<Duane.Christen@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Fully free format is not at the top of my list for improvements for RPG,
> even if free form D spec syntax met with my personal approval. :-)
>
> I would rather see resources put into improving the SQL pre-compiler,
> although 6.1 is leaps and bounds better than previous versions, or
> additional capabilities in the LPEX editor for
> formatting/colorization/prompting or additional features like the coming
> "Open Files(?)", procedure overloading, or (dare I say it)
> promotion/marketing of the IBM i.
>
> Duane Christen