Isn't there kind of a fundamental logical schizophrenia in Rexx in that you can have a program in which FOO is not a variable, yet SAY FOO is a valid instruction.
Similarly BAR. = "X" SAY BAR.17 outputs a value of "X" yet one would expect that an enumeration of BAR. would not "find" BAR.17 Rexx is kind of schizophrenic on whether or not a particular variable "exists." Yes, I know, the documentation may be precise, but the philosophy is still somewhat schizophrenic, IMHO. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:19 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Rexx Warts In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/22/2006 at 04:02 PM, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >I'd expect a thorough enumeration facility to make it possible to >determine the status of every member of the compound variable, >whether set or dropped. That would conflict[1] with the documentation of DROP as returning the variable to the uninitialized state. >... which is working as documented for Rexx. No. See The REXX Language, 2nd Edition, p53. >I assume symbol( 'stem.b' ) would have properly said 'LIT'. A dropped variable gets LIT; an uninitialized variable gets VAR. [1] As does returning the variable name instead of the stem value. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
