On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 23:40:38 +0200, Thomas Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> But a tail that contains a blank is not a valid tail. Am I right or have I
> missed something ?
>
TAIL = "Foo Bar"
Stem.TAIL = "Wombat"
... but it can only be accessed by assigning the tail to a variable, not
"Stem.'Foo Bar'", which is a concatenation -- the previously mentioned
constraint against expressions in tails.
> From my point of view it would be better if all these special variables was
> automatically "exposed" as it would simplify error handling.
> (Such as "sigl", "result" and "rc" etc.)
>
I'll pretty well agree with the Rexx design on RESULT and RC. But SIGL is
peculiarly useful in the called routine, not the caller. I might like
one-way inheritance for all of them, in the style of NUMERIC and TRACE.
> But, as You said, Address ATTCHPGM etc do not allow concurrent tasks so that
> would
> be a rexx deficiency. Or is it different in a MVS, non-TSO environment ?
>
We agree; it's a Rexx deficiency; ATTCHPGM behaves identically in TSO, IRXJCL,
and shell environments. "SYSCALL spawn" supports concurrent processes. I'd
say almost by definition, but concurrency is as basic to the definition of
ATTACH as of "spawn".
-- gil
--
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
