You may have done so - by now I don't remember who said what first :) - but I was referring to Mr Crayford's post below. As I understood them, Tony Thigpen wrote that a MOVE is actually a copy, and Mr Crayford disagreed. I'm confused; is there any computer language in which the verb MOVE exists and doesn't actually mean COPY?
...or SET, as you suggest. Yes, I like SET better. --- Bob Bridges, [email protected], cell 336 382-7313 /* In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted. -Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) */ -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wayne Bickerdike Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 04:42 I referred to this since someone said that COBOL is English like. As such the language is wrong because it does not describe correctly in English what happens. COPY, REPLICATE, PROPAGATE would all be more precise English. IDEAL(CA/Broadcom) has MOVE and SET. They do the same thing. Which do you prefer: MOVE A TO B or SET B = A ? --- On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 4:30 PM Bob Bridges <[email protected]> wrote: > Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a > move not actually a copy? And how? > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Crayford > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53 > > I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there is a > huge difference between copy and move semantics. > > --- On 2020-07-17 11:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote: > > From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to what > > you are calling a COPY. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
