Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

frame Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf > Of Chris Hoelscher > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 2:06 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call) > > [External Email] > > Add to that (

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

ct: Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call) [External Email] Add to that (list of things incomprehensible today) a party line ... (not the 1-900 variety) Chris Hoelscher Technology Architect, Database Infrastructure Services Technology Solution Services Humana Inc. 123 East Main

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

Add to that (list of things incomprehensible today) a party line ... (not the 1-900 variety) Chris Hoelscher Technology Architect, Database Infrastructure Services Technology Solution Services Humana Inc. 123 East Main Street Louisville, KY 40202 Humana.com (502) 476-2538 or 407-7266

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

Phil Smith III wrote: >Ah, the good old KLondike-5-. One of my favorite obsolete jokes: What an obsolete good joke ... uh... zorry and sorry ... I meant Absolute good joke! ;-D >Just try explaining THAT one to a modern teen: >Kid answers home phone? House HAS home phone? No

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

Gil wrote: > I recall two letters and five digits, and earlier two letters (the first two of >a word) and four digits. An abbreviated word may be easier to remember >than two arbitrary digits. But Telco gave up when they exhausted >pronouncable digraphs. Ah, the good old KLondike-5-.

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 11:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call) On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:31:43 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote: > >And ISTR was one of the reasons for seven-digit phone numbers. Either >that or it was a happy

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:31:43 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote: > >And ISTR was one of the reasons for seven-digit phone numbers. Either that >or it was a happy accident, but I know I've read at least someone claiming >it was chosen because "seven is magic". How many of us remember shorter >numbers? I

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

David Crayford wrote: >It may sound like dogma but It's a psychological theory known as Millers >law. Seven is a magic number for people's comprehension. Psychological >research has found that people generally cannot keep track of more than >about seven chunks of information at once (Miller

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On 2018-04-10, at 23:57:31, Peter Hunkeler wrote: > User-Agent: AltaMail Classic > ... > Another way to accomplish this is to enclose the whole set of parameters in > quotes or double quotes, thereby creating a single string parameter. You can > keep the comata as separators *within* the string.

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 05:58:47 -0500, Jantje. wrote: >On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:25:42 -0400, zMan wrote: > >>Well...not sure how you searched, but "rexx maximum arguments" finds it >>pretty quickly, albeit not as fast as "rexx 20 arguments" (of course,

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:25:42 -0400, zMan wrote: >Well...not sure how you searched, but "rexx maximum arguments" finds it >pretty quickly, albeit not as fast as "rexx 20 arguments" (of course, once >you know the answer already...) > I should have used Google from the

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

Phil Smith III wrote: >>Why 100? Is it documented somewhere in some REXX bookies? >As I said, this isn't a Rexx API, but the point of 100 was to pick a human >number (not "666") that was way more than likely needed. We could have picked >5, but that seems low; 10? 20? Ok. I was just curious.

AW: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

>I am using now a different separator character Another way to accomplish this is to enclose the whole set of parameters in quotes or double quotes, thereby creating a single string parameter. You can keep the comata as separators *within* the string. In the receiving code parse the

AW: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

>Frankly, I came across the 20 argument limit simply by trying it out. The REXX language imposes no limit on the number of subroutine call or function invocation parameters, but allows implementations to specify limits. TSO/E has the limit of 20. For function invocation see "z/OS TSO/E REXX

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

a bug waiting to happen, and it has only six arguments. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Phil Smith III Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 12:24 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Theology (was: Many arguments to a

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

On 11/04/2018 12:24 AM, Phil Smith III wrote: arguments. As a theological discussion, I find this interesting. Our case is like this (and isn't Rexx, though it could be): It may sound like dogma but It's a psychological theory known as Millers law. Seven is a magic number for people’s

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 20:35:34 -0400, Tom Conley wrote: >On 4/10/2018 7:14 PM, Phil Smith III wrote: > >> Seriously, I'm chary of doing something just to fit some arbitrary rule like >> "more than n arguments is bad". This reminds me of the "GOTOs are bad": yes, >> they often are, but there are

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

On 4/10/2018 7:14 PM, Phil Smith III wrote: Seriously, I'm chary of doing something just to fit some arbitrary rule like "more than n arguments is bad". This reminds me of the "GOTOs are bad": yes, they often are, but there are plenty of cases where a simple GOTO makes the code MUCH simpler.

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:27:20 -0400, Steve Smith wrote: >Take that array of tuples and put a pointer to it in the parm list. And >voila, you have only three parms, although two might be enough. The array >entries can be defined much more flexibly than trying to cram the >information into a list

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 12:29:21 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote: > >Doesn't actually need the space, of course, though my personal style would >use it for readability. It's just a trailing comma that makes it >continuation. From Rexx's perspective: > Don't the blank lines ... >rc = function(arg1,, >

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

Steve Smith: >Take that array of tuples and put a pointer to it in the parm list. And >voila, you have only three parms, although two might be enough. The array >entries can be defined much more flexibly than trying to cram the >information into a list of addresses Sure, you could do

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

Take that array of tuples and put a pointer to it in the parm list. And voila, you have only three parms, although two might be enough. The array entries can be defined much more flexibly than trying to cram the information into a list of addresses. sas​

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

Elardus Engelbrecht wrote: >It depends on the compiler of whatever language or underlying REXX interpreter environment like TSO. Can that many tuplets be handled/passed on to a function/subroutine? Sure, and we hit the PL/I compiler limit of 384 arguments (there is a flavor that has two

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

Phil Smith III wrote: >The tuplecount is the number of these triplets, and the elementcount is the >number of things in each datan. You can have up to 100 of these tuples. It depends on the compiler of whatever language or underlying REXX interpreter environment like TSO. Can that many tuplets

AW: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

EDU> Im Auftrag von Charles Mills Gesendet: 10 April, 2018 19:12 An: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Betreff: Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call) I don't think there is a theological boundary: 7 arguments good, 8 arguments bad. Your example strikes me as pretty clear. OTOH Myfun

Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Phil Smith III Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 12:24 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call) David Crayford: >If the code doesn't have to be supported by a human then you mi

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

edu> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 2:52 PM To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call Ok gentlemen, I’m going to jump in on this but because I’m not sure of the implementation of the REXX code in question I may be a little off. Basically, if the code is runni

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, at 11:53, Jantje. wrote: > I am using now a different separator character (one I am rather sure > will never occur in the value of the arguments to pass), glueing all > arguments together into one and parsing them back out in the invoked > function. That does the trick. A

Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)

David Crayford: >If the code doesn't have to be supported by a human then you might be right. >If it does then nope! Code that is generated by a program is usually the >output of a compiler that generates object code that we generally don't >care about until we need to debug it. If a program

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On 10/04/2018 9:42 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:16:52 +0800, David Crayford wrote: And 20 arguments is still wildly excessive. It's long been accepted that any more than 7 arguments are difficult to comprehend and an alternative design should be implemented. If the code is

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:16:52 +0800, David Crayford wrote: > >And 20 arguments is still wildly excessive. It's long been accepted that >any more than 7 arguments are difficult to comprehend and an alternative >design should be implemented. > If the code is generated by a program, that's not a

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

Yes, a better error message sure would be nice. Surprising, Rexx is usually better about such things! ISTR that even PL/I gives a coherent message if you hit its maximum. (384-yes, that's too many, although we hit it in a pathological case, where we were passing tuples of three or four things

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

Well...not sure how you searched, but "rexx maximum arguments" finds it pretty quickly, albeit not as fast as "rexx 20 arguments" (of course, once you know the answer already...) On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Jantje. wrote: > On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:19:19 -0700, Gerhard

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

argument limit simply by trying it out. Adam -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jantje. Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 3:53 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call On Mon, 9 Apr

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 14:31:18 -0700, Gerhard Adam wrote: >Just seems like a lot of discussion trying to pass 22 arguments, when the >limit is 20. > You're right. Only, as I was not aware of the existence of that limit... >After that it's merely a question of how you can

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 16:40:22 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote: >Eh? You invoke ALERTSN. But do so apparently incorrectly. Actually, I try to invoke ALERTSN, but it does not get invoked. > >What does TRACE I show? Exactly that: it shows the invocation being tempted and failing.

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 14:25:28 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >Correct, however the current version, TSO/E REXX User's Guide Version 2 >Release 3 >(SA32-0982-30), says in the preceding paragraph: > >Passing Arguments >Values passed to an exec are usually called arguments.

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:19:19 -0700, Gerhard Adam wrote: >Normal continuation rules would apply, but it appears that there is a limit >of 20 arguments. You have 22, which produces the error I would be very grateful if you could point me to the documentation that confirms

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

DTCC Internal (Green) -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jantje. Sent: 09 April 2018 14:27 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call ATTENTION! This email originated outside of DTCC

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On 10/04/2018 5:31 AM, Gerhard Adam wrote: Just seems like a lot of discussion trying to pass 22 arguments, when the limit is 20. And 20 arguments is still wildly excessive. It's long been accepted that any more than 7 arguments are difficult to comprehend and an alternative design should

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

Just seems like a lot of discussion trying to pass 22 arguments, when the limit is 20. After that it's merely a question of how you can convey the information using whatever means you have available. Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 9, 2018, at 12:41 PM, Paul Gilmartin >

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

Jantje wrote: >Well... ALERTSN is not seeing any of it. >The error message is emitted while ALERTSNB is in control. ALERTSN is never invoked. Eh? You invoke ALERTSN. But do so apparently incorrectly. What does TRACE I show?

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:29:22 -0700, Gerhard Adam wrote: >If you need to include all 22 arguments, just make the last one bigger and >parse it a second time to get the results. >For example: >01 /* REXX */ >02 rs =

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 10:30:13 -0400, Hobart Spitz wrote: > >Assuming we're not talking about quoted commas, which are entirely >different animals, I respectfully disagree for these reasons: > ... > 2. Putting the argument delimiting comma at the beginning of a line > means that you have to

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:59:35 +, Phil Carlyle wrote: >Found this in an IBM publication (SA32-0982-00): > >When you invoke a REXX exec either implicitly or explicitly using the EXEC >command. >You can pass either one or no arguments to the exec. Thus the ARG instruction >in the >preceding

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

o: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU<mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call If you need to include all 22 arguments, just make the last one bigger and parse it a second time to get the results. For example: 01 /* REXX */ 02 rs = ALERTSN(SEV,TYPE

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

M-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU<mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:37:20 -0400, Phil Smith III <li...@akphs.com<mailto:li...@akphs.com>> wrote: >Then you're apparently calling it wrong. I see double commas in the >er

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

09, 2018 9:12 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:37:20 -0400, Phil Smith III <li...@akphs.com> wrote: >Then you're apparently calling it wrong. I see double commas in the >error >output: that suggests you have

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call Don Grinsell wrote: >Start your continuation lines with a comma: > RS=ALERTSN(SEV,TYPENAME,ELEMENT,DESC,STATUS,STSDESC , > ,SUBSRC,SOURCE,LOCATION,SYSTYPE,PLTFTYPE,IMPACT,HOST , > ,MON

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:37:20 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote: >Then you're apparently calling it wrong. I see double commas in the error >output: that suggests you have doubled commas in the wrong place, because if >they're seen as continuation, ALERTSN won't see them at all.

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:31:26 -0500, Jantje. wrote: >On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 17:57:14 -0700, Lizette Koehler >wrote: > >>Personally in REXX I use a list with SPACE between each arg and a blank comma >>at the end >> >>VAR =' a b c ' , >> ' d e f ' >

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

Jantje wrote: >Commas at the beginning or at the end makes no difference... : As far as the language syntax goes, this is a true statement. As far as maintainability goes, that is another story. When I continue a statement, I prefer to break between arguments, as there is typically less of

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

Jantje wrote: >Commas at the beginning or at the end makes no difference... : Right, nobody thought it would. That was a style point. If your function call is still failing as you indicate: >87 +++ >RS=ALERTSN(SEV,TYPENAME,ELEMENT,DESC,STATUS,STSDESC,,SUBSRC,SOURCE,LOCATION

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 17:57:14 -0700, Lizette Koehler wrote: >Personally in REXX I use a list with SPACE between each arg and a blank comma >at the end > >VAR =' a b c ' , > ' d e f ' Unfortunately, that will not work as I have values in the arguments that contain

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 17:21:19 +, Grinsell, Don wrote: >Start your continuation lines with a comma: > > RS=ALERTSN(SEV,TYPENAME,ELEMENT,DESC,STATUS,STSDESC, > ,SUBSRC,SOURCE,LOCATION,SYSTYPE,PLTFTYPE,IMPACT,HOST, > ,MONENV,RESOURCE,EXTRINFO,ACTIVE,CLOSING,FTPERR, >

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 17:57:14 -0700, Lizette Koehler wrote: >Personally in REXX I use a list with SPACE between each arg and a blank comma >at the end > >VAR =' a b c ' , > ' d e f ' > That is just one variable, a 15-charater string. And if passed to a function would be just one argument.

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

A.EDU > Subject: Many arguments to a Rexx function call > > Dear Listers, > > How can I make this: > > RS=ALERTSN(SEV,TYPENAME,ELEMENT,DESC,STATUS,STSDESC, > SUBSRC,SOURCE,LOCATION,SYSTYPE,PLTFTYPE,IMPACT,HOST, > MONENV,RESOURCE,EXTRINFO,ACTIVE,CLOSING,FTPERR, > APPL

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

Don Grinsell wrote: >Start your continuation lines with a comma: > RS=ALERTSN(SEV,TYPENAME,ELEMENT,DESC,STATUS,STSDESC , > ,SUBSRC,SOURCE,LOCATION,SYSTYPE,PLTFTYPE,IMPACT,HOST , > ,MONENV,RESOURCE,EXTRINFO,ACTIVE,CLOSING,FTPERR , > ,APPLTYPE,APPLNAME,UNIQUE) Ooh. Never even

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 15:55:48 +, Dyck, Lionel B. (TRA) wrote: >This worked - the comma's needed to be literals: > >/* REXX*/ > parse value '1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22' with, >SEV TYPENAME ELEMENT DESC STATUS STSDESC SUBSRC SOURCE LOCATION SYSTYPE , >

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

n List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of > Jantje. > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 9:19 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Many arguments to a Rexx function call > > Dear Listers, > > How can I make this: > > RS=ALERTSN(SEV,TYPENAME,ELEMENT,DESC,STATUS,

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

Farley, Peter wrote, in part: >Use SPACE COMMA at the end of each separate line of arguments except the last line with the closing parenthesis. Doesn't actually need the space, of course, though my personal style would use it for readability. It's just a trailing comma that makes it

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

AIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jantje. Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 10:45 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 15:27:19 +, Farley, Peter x23353 <peter.far...@broadridge.com> wrote: >Use SPACE COMMA at the end of e

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

y, April 6, 2018 10:44:58 AM Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 15:27:19 +, Farley, Peter x23353 <peter.far...@broadridge.com> wrote: >Use SPACE COMMA at the end of each separate line of arguments except the last >line with the closing parent

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 15:27:19 +, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: >Use SPACE COMMA at the end of each separate line of arguments except the last >line with the closing parenthesis. > >Comma at the end of a Rexx line says concatenate the next line with the >current

Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

comma on each continuing line will solve your problem. HTH Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jantje. Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 11:19 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Many arguments to a Rexx function call

Many arguments to a Rexx function call

Dear Listers, How can I make this: RS=ALERTSN(SEV,TYPENAME,ELEMENT,DESC,STATUS,STSDESC, SUBSRC,SOURCE,LOCATION,SYSTYPE,PLTFTYPE,IMPACT,HOST, MONENV,RESOURCE,EXTRINFO,ACTIVE,CLOSING,FTPERR, APPLTYPE,APPLNAME,UNIQUE) actually work? What happens is that the values of STSDESC and SUBSRC get