Re: Free format H, F, D and P specs

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matt

I was thinking along the same lines, about a procedure declaration - 
make it like the call.

Of course, the present change keeps the look very like the old D-spec 
for declaring a procedure.

Easy enough?   :)
Vern

On 10/10/2013 1:07 PM, Matt Lavinder wrote:
> On 10/7/2013 11:47 AM, Scott Klement wrote:

> > -snip-
> > B  U  T . . .
> >
> > The issue I have with the free-form procedure definition isn't the lack
> > of brackets but its lack of consistency RPG itself.  I could let it
> > slide when it was fixed, but I have a much a harder time doing that now.
> >
> > I know WHY it looks the way it does (to be compiler friendly), but that
> > doesn't make it less ugly. I am perfectly fine with dcl-proc...end-proc
> > and I don't feel any overwhelming need for curly brackets.  I do think
> > though that in lieu of dcl-pi and end-pi you should be able to use open
> > and closing parenthesis and then separate the parameter definitions by
> > colons.
> >
> > That just makes sense.  I can't really think of a language where the
> > procedure definition is radically different from the procedure call.
> >
> > To me, this is absolutely how the procedure definition should look.  At
> > least give the option to do it this way:
> >
> >       dcl-proc transform(
> >          *n varchar(50) :
> >           name varchar(10) const options(*trim) :
> >         );
> >
> >         return '*** ' + name + ' ***';
> >       end-proc;
> >
> >       // the call
> >       transform(somvar:'My Name');
> >
> > See the consistency? Maybe one might argue that my suggestion is
> > preference, but uniformity between the procedure definition and the
> > procedure call is pretty much a standard EVERYWHERE.  So, you'll have to
> > excuse me I disagree that this is a "preference".  The fact that you
> > declare a procedure one way and then call it another WILL absolutely,
> > without question, bug young programmers. Count on it.
-snip-
> > Go easy on me. :)