>Function programs will only execute when the
> REXX function is called.
That has nothing to do with the question asked: "You don't consider an
application giving IRXINIT its own environments and function packages to be
REXX-aware?"
> Function programs will only execute when the
> REXX function is called.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand.
> There's nothing to stop the program from being called using other methods
> without a REXX environment.
The fact that it is possible to write a function foo() for some other context
does not mean that someone has done so, that it is usable from REXX or that it
does the same thing. The issue is whether an application that provides
REXX-callable application-specific functions to REXX scripts is REXX-aware,
> Is defining REXX functions even necessary?
Necessary for what? An application that supports user-written scripts in REXX
has an API; it's an application design decision how much to include in that
API. Often that includes providing functions, but it need not.
> To say "at least in TSO and Unix" implies people expect
> IBM to do a half assed implementation of ooRexx that
> is incompatible with automation, CICS, IMS, batch rexx,
> system rexx and others not mentioned.
No. Had I meant that I would have written it.
> Even Unix frowns upon unique programming language variants. Remember Python
> 2.x vs Python 3.x.
Also remember OS/2 (like all Unix variants)
OS/2 is *NOT* a Unix variant.
> The same ooRexx is easily used from any process.
No:
1. There is no ooRexx for OS/2, because IBM did not
unbundle the source for all of the packages,
e.g., SOM, WPS.
2, IBM shipped bot OREXX and OREXX.
> For z/OS, you must port ooRexx to automation, CICS,
> IMS and more.
No.
> IBM REXX was designed to be environment agnostic
n the sense that an application is free to provide its own environments and
functions. That doesn't change with ooRexx,
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Jon
Perryman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 6:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Rexx is quite cool, flexible, powerful, feature-rich, thank you!
(Re: z/OS 3.1 Enhancements & Support News
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 19:46:43 +0000, Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote:
>You don't consider an application giving IRXINIT its own environments
>and function packages to be REXX-aware?
Function programs will only execute when the REXX function is called. There's
nothing to stop the program from being called using other methods without a
REXX environment. The is not rexx-aware.
IRXINIT by a product is not required for a products to use REXX. For example,
Netview allows you to use the REXX API because Netview initializes REXX. You
can add REXX functions to the Netview function package.
Is defining REXX functions even necessary? I vaguely remember someone doing
something like IEFBR14( ) without the function being defined but I could
easily be wrong.
>> Is ooRexx a complete replacement for IBM REXX?
>OREXX is a complete replacement for SAA REXX on OS/2;
> Were IBM to do port and integration of ooRexx to TSO,
> I would expect it to be a complete replacement, at least in TSO and Unix
> contexts.
> I don't have expectations either way for System REXX.
To say "at least in TSO and Unix" implies people expect IBM to do a half assed
implementation of ooRexx that is incompatible with automation, CICS, IMS, batch
rexx, system rexx and others not mentioned. Your expectation is for users to
use 2 unique REXX variants on the same system depending upon environment.
Even Unix frowns upon unique programming language variants. Remember Python 2.x
vs Python 3.x.
Also remember OS/2 (like all Unix variants) is a very simplistic
implementation. The same ooRexx is easily used from any process. For z/OS, you
must port ooRexx to automation, CICS, IMS and more. IBM REXX was designed to be
environment agnostic and simple changes to incompatible routines.
> I doubbt that there is a Rexx developer on the planet that would agree with
> you.
Most product developers would not want to deal with ooRexx and changes to their
documentation. Given that IBM is not going to port ooRexx to z/OS, I suspect
most REXX programmers would agree with me. With all it's blemishes, it's the
same on all z/OS systems, same across all products and is fully supported /
tested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
