I even find occasions where I wish I could do this with arrays. If I need
the index, I always have to fall back to the iterated version.
One problem with relying on just the two variables and OVER to trigger this
behavior for different situations, there are alternative solutions that
could be more efficient than requesting a supply (such as the array
situation). While it is nice to try to find a "reasonable"default, this
can be a trap that results in unfortunate inefficiencies.
Right now, I'm thinking I quite like Walter's suggestion of using WITH as
the keyword. I think it should be possible to also make the second
variable optional, which would make is similar to DO OVER, but not
necessarily identical, because the single variable will either be always an
index or always a value, where DO OVER assignments are determined by what
the OVER object returns for MAKEARRAY.
As for the order, yes, I wrestled with that as well with OF methods for the
collection objects. Putting the index first just seemed to be a more
natural ordering when describing pairs. The almost 25 year-old decision to
use the reverse order for put() was largely driven by multi-dimensional
arrays needing more than one argument position for the index. For these
loops, I think index/value is still a desirable ordering.
Rick
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Sahananda (Jon) Wolfers <
sahana...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I never tangle with suppliers, but i would find this useful with relations
> and tables etc..
> I don't think anything more than the comma is needed, as the do..over
> makes it clear that you are iterating over something and the comma makes it
> clear that there is an index and value involved. I do wonder which order
> the two should come in though as many collection methods put the value
> first then the index.
> Jon
> On Oct 11, 2014 6:58 AM, "Walter Pachl" <christel.u.w.pa...@chello.at>
> wrote:
>
>> Or WITH ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
>> Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
>> Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
>> Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oorexx-devel mailing list
>> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
> Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
> Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
> Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
