date:20201109

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

2020-11-09 Thread Chip Davis

We must be careful we don't cut ourselves on such a sharp edge-case.  
The salient arguments boil down to:
 - The Principle of Least Astonishment argues for modifying ooRexx to 
match the behavior of other Rexx'es.

 - The Policy of Least Exceptions argues that ooRexx has the right rule.

The purist in me contends that the ooRexx behavior is the correct one, 
and we should simply update the errortext: "DIGITS value must be a 
positive whole number expressible under the current setting of 
"NUMERIC DIGITS nn"; found "dd".  We could do that for ooRexx and 
NetRexx, but the likelihood of any IBM Rexx processor following suit, 
is nil.


There is a valid argument for making ooRexx consistent with all the 
other Rexx'es out there, especially the huge installed base of IBM 
Rexx code.  One might hope that the number of ooRexx programs affected 
by this change could be expressed in Numeric Digits 2, but who knows 
where (or how critical) that code may be.  This will also require 
documenting (and test-casing) this exception to the current behavior.  
But it won't be the only place that the design of Rexx has bent an 
ideal consistency to the reality of dealing with humans.


As big a fan of consistency as I am, I'm afraid I come down on the 
more pragmatic PLA side of this issue, especially given the expected 
amount of code affected.


-Chip-



___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

2020-11-09 Thread Mike Cowlishaw

I may be mis-remembering -- but one of the two APARs was definitely related to 
NUMERIC DIGITS 1.
 
I never had access to the APAR database, of course, so I never saw the actual 
report (or, if I did, I don't remember it!).
 
Mike
 
 
 


  _  

From: René Jansen [mailto:rvjan...@xs4all.nl] 
Sent: 09 November 2020 15:23
To: Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day


The PTF for this APAR probably did not make it into the code, because TSO and 
CMS Rexx (for z/OS 2.3 and z/VM 6.4 at least) do not have a problem with 
setting numeric digits to 1 and then to 18. 

/* */  
numeric digits 1   
say digits()   
numeric digits 18  
say digits()   

 numeric   
1  
18 

At the moment, ooRexx is the only one I can find that behaves like this.

best regards,

René.







On 9 Nov 2020, at 15:00, Mike Cowlishaw  wrote:

And some more background .. if I recall correctly, this was set (corrected) to 
work this way after an APAR (one of only two, ever) was raised for exactly this 
case because the interpreter did NOT report it as an error whereas the 
documentation implied that it should.   There was some discussion in 1981 as to 
whether there should be a minimum value for NUMERIC DIGITS (e.g., 3), but it 
was hard to argue why that should be -- this would have been a cogent argument 
if we'd thought of this case!   :-)
 
(Separately, the original REX error messages .. the 'headline' error messages 
... had to be really short because of the need to keep the interpreter within 
32KB (yes, KB) so that it would fit in less then half of one rotation of paging 
drums ...)
 
Mike



  _  

From: Rick McGuire [mailto:object.r...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 09 November 2020 13:47
To: Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day




On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:21 AM rvjan...@xs4all.nl  wrote:


Hi Walter, 

Yes, well, it could be a typo. I am worried about all other implementations, 
including NetRexx and z/OS TSO, z/VM, Regina, brexx, etc, being wrong if this 
is the right way. It certainly fails the (however subjective) principle of 
least astonishment, and I also get the feeling the ‘numeric digits’ statement 
is not necessarily meant for the next instance of ‘numeric digits’. Changing 
the error message would go a long way: ‘with numeric digits set to X, Y is not 
a valid positive whole number.’

 
The mainframe versions all behave the same way. I have had this conversation 
several times since 1982, almost always from a tester playing with setting 
digits to 1. 

 


I’ll put it on the list for the ARB. Who wants to be on the ARB? We have an 
obligation to run an Architecture Review Board, as discussed during the 
symposium. I am looking for volunteers. I suggest at least Erich and Rick be on 
it. I suggest we do not convene more than once a quarter.


René.


On 9 Nov 2020, at 13:59, WalterPachl via Oorexx-devel 
 wrote:



 
Who on earth (except "us nasty testers") would ever issue ND 1

I am much more concerned about the performance disaster I reported 2 or 3 weeks 
ago :-(

Greetings

WALTER


"Rony G. Flatscher"  hat am 9. November 2020 um 11:31 
geschrieben:


On 09.11.2020 10:35, Erich Steinböck wrote: 

This one stunned me!

~~~
numeric digits 1
numeric digits 18
-- Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18".
~~~


Maybe enhancing the error message to indicate the current setting of numeric 
digits which makes "18"
not a positive whole number would explain to the programmer why the error 
occurs. Something like
"Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18" (numeric 
digits is currently
set to 1 digit)."

---rony




___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel



___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel


___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel


___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel



___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

2020-11-09 Thread René Jansen

The PTF for this APAR probably did not make it into the code, because TSO and 
CMS Rexx (for z/OS 2.3 and z/VM 6.4 at least) do not have a problem with 
setting numeric digits to 1 and then to 18.

/* */  
numeric digits 1   
say digits()   
numeric digits 18  
say digits()   

 numeric   
1  
18 

At the moment, ooRexx is the only one I can find that behaves like this.

best regards,

René.






> On 9 Nov 2020, at 15:00, Mike Cowlishaw  wrote:
> 
> And some more background .. if I recall correctly, this was set (corrected) 
> to work this way after an APAR (one of only two, ever) was raised for exactly 
> this case because the interpreter did NOT report it as an error whereas the 
> documentation implied that it should.   There was some discussion in 1981 as 
> to whether there should be a minimum value for NUMERIC DIGITS (e.g., 3), but 
> it was hard to argue why that should be -- this would have been a cogent 
> argument if we'd thought of this case!   :-)
>  
> (Separately, the original REX error messages .. the 'headline' error messages 
> ... had to be really short because of the need to keep the interpreter within 
> 32KB (yes, KB) so that it would fit in less then half of one rotation of 
> paging drums ...)
>  
> Mike
> 
>> From: Rick McGuire [mailto:object.r...@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: 09 November 2020 13:47
>> To: Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:21 AM rvjan...@xs4all.nl 
>>  mailto:rvjan...@xs4all.nl>> 
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Walter,
>>> 
>>> Yes, well, it could be a typo. I am worried about all other 
>>> implementations, including NetRexx and z/OS TSO, z/VM, Regina, brexx, etc, 
>>> being wrong if this is the right way. It certainly fails the (however 
>>> subjective) principle of least astonishment, and I also get the feeling the 
>>> ‘numeric digits’ statement is not necessarily meant for the next instance 
>>> of ‘numeric digits’. Changing the error message would go a long way: ‘with 
>>> numeric digits set to X, Y is not a valid positive whole number.’
>>  
>> The mainframe versions all behave the same way. I have had this conversation 
>> several times since 1982, almost always from a tester playing with setting 
>> digits to 1. 
>> 
>>  
>>> 
>>> I’ll put it on the list for the ARB. Who wants to be on the ARB? We have an 
>>> obligation to run an Architecture Review Board, as discussed during the 
>>> symposium. I am looking for volunteers. I suggest at least Erich and Rick 
>>> be on it. I suggest we do not convene more than once a quarter.
>>> 
>>> René.
>>> 
 On 9 Nov 2020, at 13:59, WalterPachl via Oorexx-devel 
 >>> > wrote:
 
 
 Who on earth (except "us nasty testers") would ever issue ND 1
 I am much more concerned about the performance disaster I reported 2 or 3 
 weeks ago :-(
 Greetings
 WALTER
> "Rony G. Flatscher"  > hat am 9. November 2020 um 11:31 
> geschrieben:
> 
> 
> On 09.11.2020 10:35, Erich Steinböck wrote:
>> 
>> This one stunned me!
>> 
>> ~~~
>> numeric digits 1
>> numeric digits 18
>> -- Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18".
>> ~~~
> 
> Maybe enhancing the error message to indicate the current setting of 
> numeric digits which makes "18"
> not a positive whole number would explain to the programmer why the error 
> occurs. Something like
> "Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18" 
> (numeric digits is currently
> set to 1 digit)."
> 
> ---rony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net 
> 
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel 
> 
 
 ___
 Oorexx-devel mailing list
 Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net 
 
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel 
 
>>> ___
>>> Oorexx-devel mailing list
>>> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net 
>>> 
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel 
>>> 
> ___
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

___
Oorexx-de

[Oorexx-devel] Updated (Re: [RexxLA] Rexx as a scripting language in Java based web servers

2020-11-09 Thread Rony G. Flatscher

Uploaded an updated version of the taglib library to:
: 
added optional
attribute "arguments" to control creation of arguments for script/expr, 
optimized multiple Rexx
invocations for the same page.

Currently there have been three students applying the taglib such that it is 
regarded to be stable
and bug free, hence also making it known to the bsf4oorexx and oorexx developer 
communities which
may be interested in checking out this infrastructure.

If interested, just read the brief information (from "readme.md") at the above 
download URL in order
to become able to setup Tomcat 9 and write web applications using Rexx/ooRexx 
with Java based web
servers lice Apache Tomcat 9.

If you test this taglib with earlier versions of Tomcat or with other web 
servers like IBM WebSphere
and the like, please report back!

---

Here a possible JSP/RSP (Rexx server page), named "hello.jsp" (note the 
elements  and ):

<%@ page session="false" pageEncoding="UTF-8" contentType="text/html; 
charset=UTF-8" %>
<%@ taglib uri="/WEB-INF/script-jsr223.tld" prefix="s" %>

body { background-color: ivory; }

Sample Application JSP Page Using Rexx Via JSR-223 (Title)

Here is the text generated by a Rexx script:

  say 'Hello, world, this is Rexx speaking at' .dateTime~new

 It is now exactly (using a Rexx expression):
   .dateTime~new~string.

and how it gets rendered in a browser:

and here the pure text in case the picture does not make it:

Here is the text generated by a Rexx script:
/Hello, world, this is Rexx speaking at 2020-11-09T15:48:38.429000 /

It is now exactly (using a Rexx expression):
/2020-11-09T15:48:38.429000/.

and here the generated HTML-text that gets returned by the Java based web 
server (Tomcat 9 in this
example):

body { 
background-color: ivory; }
Sample Application JSP Page Using Rexx Via JSR-223
(Title)Here is the text generated by a Rexx script: 
Hello, world, this is Rexx 
speaking at
2020-11-09T15:48:38.429000 It is now exactly (using a Rexx
expression):2020-11-09T15:48:38.429000.

Note: the taglib is compiled for Java 6, such that it should be usable on 
earlier versions of Java
based web servers as well.

---rony

On 29.10.2020 15:08, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> at this year's International Rexx symposium I was able to briefly demonstrate 
> an infrastructure with
> which it becomes possible to create web applications with Rexx on Java based 
> web servers.
>
> If you point your browsers to
> 
> and read through that page you will get a brief overview. The zip-archive 
> "demoRexx20201029.zip"
> contains all the examples.
>
> If you want to test it for yourself, you need to download Tomcat 9 (*not* 
> Tomcat 10, which is still
> under development), the latest version of ooRexx 5 and BSF4ooRexx.
>
> Although I will be off a few days, you should be able to get everything up 
> and running (possibly
> also with WebSphere and the likes, which I had no time to look into).
>
> HTH,
>
> ---rony

___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

2020-11-09 Thread Mike Cowlishaw

And some more background .. if I recall correctly, this was set (corrected) to 
work this way after an APAR (one of only two, ever) was raised for exactly this 
case because the interpreter did NOT report it as an error whereas the 
documentation implied that it should.   There was some discussion in 1981 as to 
whether there should be a minimum value for NUMERIC DIGITS (e.g., 3), but it 
was hard to argue why that should be -- this would have been a cogent argument 
if we'd thought of this case!   :-)
 
(Separately, the original REX error messages .. the 'headline' error messages 
... had to be really short because of the need to keep the interpreter within 
32KB (yes, KB) so that it would fit in less then half of one rotation of paging 
drums ...)
 
Mike



  _  

From: Rick McGuire [mailto:object.r...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 09 November 2020 13:47
To: Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day




On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:21 AM rvjan...@xs4all.nl  wrote:


Hi Walter, 

Yes, well, it could be a typo. I am worried about all other implementations, 
including NetRexx and z/OS TSO, z/VM, Regina, brexx, etc, being wrong if this 
is the right way. It certainly fails the (however subjective) principle of 
least astonishment, and I also get the feeling the ‘numeric digits’ statement 
is not necessarily meant for the next instance of ‘numeric digits’. Changing 
the error message would go a long way: ‘with numeric digits set to X, Y is not 
a valid positive whole number.’

 
The mainframe versions all behave the same way. I have had this conversation 
several times since 1982, almost always from a tester playing with setting 
digits to 1. 

 


I’ll put it on the list for the ARB. Who wants to be on the ARB? We have an 
obligation to run an Architecture Review Board, as discussed during the 
symposium. I am looking for volunteers. I suggest at least Erich and Rick be on 
it. I suggest we do not convene more than once a quarter.


René.


On 9 Nov 2020, at 13:59, WalterPachl via Oorexx-devel 
 wrote:



 

Who on earth (except "us nasty testers") would ever issue ND 1


I am much more concerned about the performance disaster I reported 2 or 3 weeks 
ago :-(


Greetings


WALTER


"Rony G. Flatscher"  hat am 9. November 2020 um 11:31 
geschrieben:


On 09.11.2020 10:35, Erich Steinböck wrote: 

This one stunned me!

~~~
numeric digits 1
numeric digits 18
-- Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18".
~~~


Maybe enhancing the error message to indicate the current setting of numeric 
digits which makes "18"
not a positive whole number would explain to the programmer why the error 
occurs. Something like
"Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18" (numeric 
digits is currently
set to 1 digit)."

---rony




___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel





___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel


___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel


___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

2020-11-09 Thread Rick McGuire

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:21 AM rvjan...@xs4all.nl 
wrote:

> Hi Walter,
>
> Yes, well, it could be a typo. I am worried about all other
> implementations, including NetRexx and z/OS TSO, z/VM, Regina, brexx, etc,
> being wrong if this is the right way. It certainly fails the (however
> subjective) principle of least astonishment, and I also get the feeling the
> ‘numeric digits’ statement is not necessarily meant for the next instance
> of ‘numeric digits’. Changing the error message would go a long way: ‘with
> numeric digits set to X, Y is not a valid positive whole number.’
>

The mainframe versions all behave the same way. I have had this
conversation several times since 1982, almost always from a tester playing
with setting digits to 1.



>
> I’ll put it on the list for the ARB. Who wants to be on the ARB? We have
> an obligation to run an Architecture Review Board, as discussed during the
> symposium. I am looking for volunteers. I suggest at least Erich and Rick
> be on it. I suggest we do not convene more than once a quarter.
>
> René.
>
> On 9 Nov 2020, at 13:59, WalterPachl via Oorexx-devel <
> oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Who on earth (except "us nasty testers") would ever issue ND 1
>
> I am much more concerned about the performance disaster I reported 2 or 3
> weeks ago :-(
>
> Greetings
>
> WALTER
>
> "Rony G. Flatscher"  hat am 9. November 2020 um
> 11:31 geschrieben:
>
>
> On 09.11.2020 10:35, Erich Steinböck wrote:
>
> This one stunned me!
>
> ~~~
> numeric digits 1
> numeric digits 18
> -- Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18".
> ~~~
>
>
> Maybe enhancing the error message to indicate the current setting of
> numeric digits which makes "18"
> not a positive whole number would explain to the programmer why the error
> occurs. Something like
> "Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18"
> (numeric digits is currently
> set to 1 digit)."
>
> ---rony
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
>
> ___
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
> ___
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

2020-11-09 Thread rvjan...@xs4all.nl

Hi Walter,

Yes, well, it could be a typo. I am worried about all other implementations, 
including NetRexx and z/OS TSO, z/VM, Regina, brexx, etc, being wrong if this 
is the right way. It certainly fails the (however subjective) principle of 
least astonishment, and I also get the feeling the ‘numeric digits’ statement 
is not necessarily meant for the next instance of ‘numeric digits’. Changing 
the error message would go a long way: ‘with numeric digits set to X, Y is not 
a valid positive whole number.’

I’ll put it on the list for the ARB. Who wants to be on the ARB? We have an 
obligation to run an Architecture Review Board, as discussed during the 
symposium. I am looking for volunteers. I suggest at least Erich and Rick be on 
it. I suggest we do not convene more than once a quarter.

René.

> On 9 Nov 2020, at 13:59, WalterPachl via Oorexx-devel 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Who on earth (except "us nasty testers") would ever issue ND 1
> 
> I am much more concerned about the performance disaster I reported 2 or 3 
> weeks ago :-(
> 
> Greetings
> 
> WALTER
> 
>> "Rony G. Flatscher"  hat am 9. November 2020 um 
>> 11:31 geschrieben:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 09.11.2020 10:35, Erich Steinböck wrote:
>>> This one stunned me!
>>> 
>>> ~~~
>>> numeric digits 1
>>> numeric digits 18
>>> -- Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18".
>>> ~~~
>> 
>> Maybe enhancing the error message to indicate the current setting of numeric 
>> digits which makes "18"
>> not a positive whole number would explain to the programmer why the error 
>> occurs. Something like
>> "Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18" 
>> (numeric digits is currently
>> set to 1 digit)."
>> 
>> ---rony
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Oorexx-devel mailing list
>> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
> 
> ___
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

2020-11-09 Thread Erich Steinböck

>
> Who on earth (except "us nasty testers") would ever issue ND 1
>
This is from some math code doing arbitrary-precision calculations.
~~~
numeric digits x~length -- use full argument precision
... does some argument reduction here
numeric digits self~package~digits -- revert back to package default
~~~
___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

2020-11-09 Thread WalterPachl via Oorexx-devel


Who on earth (except "us nasty testers") would ever issue ND 1I am much more concerned about the performance disaster I reported 2 or 3 weeks ago :-(GreetingsWALTER"Rony G. Flatscher"  hat am 9. November 2020 um 11:31 geschrieben:On 09.11.2020 10:35, Erich Steinböck wrote:This one stunned me!~~~numeric digits 1numeric digits 18-- Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18".~~~Maybe enhancing the error message to indicate the current setting of numeric digits which makes "18"not a positive whole number would explain to the programmer why the error occurs. Something like"Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18" (numeric digits is currentlyset to 1 digit)."---rony___Oorexx-devel mailing listOorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
 

___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

2020-11-09 Thread Rony G. Flatscher

On 09.11.2020 10:35, Erich Steinböck wrote:
> This one stunned me!
>
> ~~~
> numeric digits 1
> numeric digits 18
> -- Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18".
> ~~~

Maybe enhancing the error message to indicate the current setting of numeric 
digits which makes "18"
not a positive whole number would explain to the programmer why the error 
occurs. Something like
"Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18" (numeric 
digits is currently
set to 1 digit)."

---rony

___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

2020-11-09 Thread Rick McGuire

Surprising, but correct. The NUMERIC instruction is also subject to the
restrictions of the current NUMERIC instruction. Under NUMERIC DIGITS 1, 18
is not a valid whole number.

Rick

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:36 AM Erich Steinböck 
wrote:

> This one stunned me!
>
> ~~~
> numeric digits 1
> numeric digits 18
> -- Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18".
> ~~~
> ___
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

2020-11-09 Thread Harmander Singh

My view is that ooRexx should be honourably able to get away with this:
with numeric digits 1, you have to first code something like the
understandable
  numeric digits 2
before using
  numeric digits 18

the code
  numeric digits 1
  numeric digits 2
  numeric digits 18
  say 2/3
yields
  0.67


On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 20:47, WalterPachl via Oorexx-devel <
oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> Regina begs to differ :-)
>
> Parse Version v
> Say v
> numeric digits 1
> numeric digits 18
> say digits()
>
> Z:\HM>regina 18
> REXX-Regina_3.9.1(MT) 5.00 5 Apr 2015
> 18
>
> Z:\HM>rexx 18
> REXX-ooRexx_4.2.0(MT)_64-bit 6.04 22 Feb 2014
> 4 *-* numeric digits 18
> Error 26 running Z:\HM\18.rex line 4: Invalid whole number
> Error 26.5: DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18"
>
> Erich Steinböck  hat am 9. November 2020 um
> 10:35 geschrieben:
>
> This one stunned me!
>
> ~~~
> numeric digits 1
> numeric digits 18
> -- Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18".
> ~~~
> ___
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
>
> ___
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

2020-11-09 Thread WalterPachl via Oorexx-devel


Regina begs to differ :-)Parse Version vSay v numeric digits 1numeric digits 18say digits() Z:\HM>regina 18REXX-Regina_3.9.1(MT) 5.00 5 Apr 201518Z:\HM>rexx 18REXX-ooRexx_4.2.0(MT)_64-bit 6.04 22 Feb 2014 4 *-* numeric digits 18Error 26 running Z:\HM\18.rex line 4: Invalid whole numberError 26.5: DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18"Erich Steinböck  hat am 9. November 2020 um 10:35 geschrieben:  This one stunned me! ~~~numeric digits 1numeric digits 18 -- Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18".~~~ ___ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel 
 

___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

[Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

2020-11-09 Thread Erich Steinböck

This one stunned me!

~~~
numeric digits 1
numeric digits 18
-- Error 26.5:  DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18".
~~~
___
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

[Oorexx-devel] Updated (Re: [RexxLA] Rexx as a scripting language in Java based web servers

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

[Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day

14 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information