No, it is a feature of *some* interpreters. Others translate into an internal code and interpret that.
I don't know how it handles duplicate labels, but Object Rexx definitely catches some errors that others don't as the result of its initial tokenization prior to execution. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <[email protected]> on behalf of Charles Mills <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 2:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol Well, and it is a feature of interpretive execution. When you branch to a label, it looks until it finds that label. It doesn't keep looking to see if there is another. (Yes, it could and might, but it would take time, and it doesn't.) It's an example of something I dislike about both Rexx and Python: errors that would be caught in compilation in other languages are not caught until you hit them, perhaps at oh-dark-thirty at a customer site. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Phil Smith III Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 10:00 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ASMA043E Previously defined symbol Paul Gilmartin wrote, re Rexx being fine with duplicate labels: >That's bad. That's WAD. Remember, the goal of Rexx was ease of use. Just sayin'.
