Paul Gilmartin wrote: >Lack of closure: I don't believe a function package, much less a >command environment can be coded in REXX. those must be coded in >another language, therefore less portable.
Well, that's a good point. OORexx makes that somewhat better, but not like P/P. But I could imagine writing an interface to enable this. The tricky part with Classic Rexx would be variable passing, but Pipes demonstrates that it's quite doable. I think it'd be easier with OORexx, no? >I've written some utility packages which I concatenate with >SYSIN, REPRO to a temporary member, and execute that. >Ugh! You mean so you have your program + "standard" functions, glue 'em together, and thus the standard functions are local and can access variables easily? Cool. Can't quite imagine doing that on CMS! >Lack of support for instream data. Not sure what you mean here--is it that it's not native/trivial to read from a DD * in Rexx? >Lack of elementary functions, made a challenge by the >desire to support arbitrary precision. (Can a function >package, in whatever language determine the caller's >NUMERIC settings at the instant of call?) No, though I've never wanted that. Not saying it's not a valid requirement: had the Rexx ecosystem developed more, stuff like this would have become necessary and presumably been enabled. This is a fun discussion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
