Gil wrote: >My understanding is that to DROP a compound stem frees all associated storage. Correct.
>Freeing an individual variable or member of a compound does not. In fact, it >can be demonstrated that to DROP an individual member of a compound actually >*increases* the storage used. Also correct. >Does RETURN from a PROCEDURE EXPOSE free storage of variables not >EXPOSEd? Can that be useful? Yes: it has to. Otherwise those variables will be in limbo, since they can never be referenced again. This is not meant to be snide, just a citation of sorts: these behaviors were discussed long ago when Rexx was introduced to VM/CMS, are established canon. (Is that redundant? Can there be UNestablished canon?) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
