On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Rick McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Mike Cowlishaw <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I think these do need to be bracketed, since the "," is already used in
>> the IF/WHEN instruction and with DO WHILE/UNTIL for the shortcut AND
>> conditionals.
>>
>> Ah, but can one not think of those lists as arrays? And maybe even
>> define them that way.
>>
>> That might work, but currently those lists get some special treatment.
> If you redefined the conditional expression such that it needs to evaluate
> to a Rexx boolean OR an array where each element must evaluate to a
> boolean, this will work. That means something like this
>
> conds = .array~of(.true, .true, .true)
>
> if conds then
>
> would be equivalent to
>
> if .true, .true, .true then
>
> but that does make the comma form less of a special expression case.
>
On further reflection, the conditional expression cannot be merged with a
simple redefinition. The conditional expressions have the "shortcut"
feature where not all of the expressions need to be evaluated. The
conditionals will still need to be a special case because of that. I'm
still thinking the comma syntax is workable...this would just work using
the same rules as argument lists, which essentially do produce an array of
values.
Rick
>
>
> There's a little awkwardness if you are using these within an argument
> list since you'd need to use parens. Thus my example of a collection OF
> method would need to be coded
>
> dir = .directory~of(("Rick", "USA"), ("Mike", "UK"))
>
> you'd still need bracketing, just using parens rather than brackets. This
> becomes more of a documentation issue since it will be important to
> highlight this point, but not that big of a deal.
>
> I think I'm starting to warm up to this suggestion. This just expands on
> something we already have and still leaves the brackets available for some
> other future usage.
>
> Rick
>
>
>>
>> Square brackets are already used as a message type (primarily with
>> collection objects), but thankfully, the usage follows the same rules as
>> builtin functions, so they can be used in both the message form and
>> paren-like fashion.
>>
>> (Yes, I use them heavily with stems passed to routines and accessed via
>> Use Arg.)
>>
>> Doubling up might work, but it feels somehow "not right" to me.
>>
>> I agree -- ugly, too.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> -------------------
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Mike Cowlishaw <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If one didn't want to use up the 'gold' of single brackets ...
>>>
>>>
>>> first, does one need the brackets at all? I've often thought as commas
>>> in Rexx as being a list notation, in effect, so perhaps:
>>>
>>> a=1, 2, 3
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> do x over 23, 34, 45
>>>
>>> Or, to save single-square-brackets one could go Wikipedia-like:
>>>
>>> a=[[1, 2, 3]]
>>>
>>> etc ...
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
>>>
>>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oorexx-devel mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
>>
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oorexx-devel mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
