In <500e6b77.2090...@bcs.org.uk>, on 07/24/2012
at 10:31 AM, CM Poncelet <ponce...@bcs.org.uk> said:
>OK. But I do not *have* to code "ISPEXEC CONTROL ERRORS RETURN".
>The rest is mostly "ISREDIT ..." apart from pure REXX instructions
>which do not need quotes around them.
Address ISREDIT does not in general require quotes either. The quotes
are only needed because you want constants with special characters.
Had you wanted, e.g.,
Address ISREDIT F NEXT
then you wouldn't have needed quotes, assuming that you haven't
assigned values to F or NEXT.
>So I assume that "ISPEXEC ..." is calling ISPEXEC directly, but
>that "ISREDIT ..." is then calling ISREDIT likewise directly
No; Address ISPEXEC is calling ISPECEC directly and Address ISREDIT
... is calling ISREDIT directly. A statement containing only an
expression is evaluated and the result passed to the current
environment.
>But on the other hand, if REXX does an ADDRESS IPCS followed by
>an IPCS call - and then an ADDRESS ISREDIT followed by one or more
>ISREDIT calls - does that imply that IPCS is now calling ISREDIT,
>or is ISPEXEC still calling it?
By "IPCS call" and "ISREDIT call" do you mean expressions beginning
with IPCS or ISREDIT? If so, it's indirect. OTOH, if you mean
expressions recognized by IPCS or ISREDIT, then it's direct.
Address ISREDIT
ISREDIT foo /* indirect */
foo /* direct */
>Meanwhile, REXX is a function-like sort of interpretative and
>simplified PL/I
Don't confuse REXX syntax with the syntax of commands that REXX is
passing to an environment. From a REXX perspective, what it is passing
to TSO, ISPEXEC, ISREDIT or any other environment is an arbitrary
character string.
>But I have a feeling that this is 'barking up the wrong tree'.
>Panels are associated with ISPF dialogs which, in turn, rely on
>the 'old' standards (which include Clist as well as panels).
Why do you believe that CLIST had any impact on the design of ISPF
panels?
>So I guess there is a clash between the 'old' way of prefixing
>variables with &'s and the 'new' way of declaring them without &'s.
No; there's a clash between the way ISPF works and your preconceptions
about how it works. From an ISPF and CLIST perspective, REXX is just a
consumer of strings; how it interprets those string is beyond the
scope of the scripting language.
>but because they use different 'building blocks' that don't fit
>together.
Actually, REXX and ISPF fit together quite well, but you have to
understand both.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
