On 28.09.2025 15:04, Hobart Spitz wrote:
IMHO, yes. It keeps with the philosophy of general flexibility and "letting the programmer do
what they want when they want" even if we can't think of a reason right now.
Thank you for your feedback, Hobart!
Any other thoughts?
---rony
OREXXMan
Q: What do you call the residence of the ungulate with the largest antlers?
A: A moose pad.
:-D
Would you rather pass data in move mode (*nix piping) or locate mode (Pipes) or via disk (JCL)?
Why do you think you rarely see *nix commands with more than a dozen filters, while Pipelines
specifications are commonly over 100s of stages, and 1000s of stages are not uncommon.
REXX is the new C.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 05:49 Rony G. Flatscher <[email protected]> wrote:
ooRexx being a dynamic language usually allows for defining, e.g. classes
statically with
directives, but also dynamically at runtime instantiating .class (and
creating and assigning
methods
and the like).
The ::options directive has become quite powerful and it would be helpful
to be able to a)
query all
package's current settings and b) allowing to change the (::options
related) package settings at
runtime ("dynamic"). (Maybe a proper Options class may be helpful which
allows for
interrogating and
setting options.)
This may help in situations like using (maybe older) Rexx programs for
which some settings
should be
changed (like "any syntax", but also "trace ..." comes to mind, etc.).
Would that be seen as a desired improvement?
---rony
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
