Re: 7.1 and RPG prototypes

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Jon Paris <jon.paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

OK - I see where you are coming from - but, as you seem to realize, what you would like is hardly a practical option.

I think we have a difference of opinion on the level of practicality.
You make it sound like it's ridiculously hard, whereas I would
characterize it as "definitely doable, but definitely not low-hanging
fruit either". Whether I'm as sanguine about it as Dieter, I'm not
sure. (I often have a difficult time fully digesting what he has to
say, even when we are thinking the same thing, and I haven't sat with
his posts long enough yet.)

It's also possible I'm not shooting for as high a degree of safety as
you think I am. For example:

[...] there is still the problem of late binding. For instance a dynamically called program can be subject to library list and other factors - how can the compiler validate against something that may not even exist at compile time. Same problem with Service Program procedures that are dynamically bound - or bound via procedure pointer.

Of course it would not be the compiler's job to validate against
anything that doesn't exist yet. And any existing program object, once
compiled, would not be expected to take into account any subsequent
changes in the objects it references.

"Procedure pointers" are... well, one of those things that probably
wouldn't have arisen in the first place, in the world I'm imagining.
Or they would have arisen in a much different form. But anyway, they
are here now and I wouldn't propose getting rid of them (just as I
wouldn't propose getting rid of /COPY).

John Y.