On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:12:08 -0800, Edward Jaffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>... >Why would existing definitions suddenly "break" if the length >restriction on symbolic values was removed? Seems to me that it >would be a transparent change. >... Nothing currently working would break ... until you change a symbol's value to something longer than the symbol name. Length checking is currently done when the symbol is set. Eliminate that and it needs to be done (if at all) where the symbol is used. I don't think that is a big enough concern to keep things the way they are, but what I think doesn't matter much. Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
