On 06.09.2020 20:52, WalterPachl wrote:
... cut ...
> so the commas are ands with shortcut
>
> Rony's notation seems clear/er/ &, and |,
>
Well, it was Erich suggesting them as a possibility, I just spelled the effect
out:
On 05.09.2020 20:39, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
> On 04.09.2020
In this case, the expressions are evaluated in turn from left to right, and if the result of any evaluation is 1 then the test has succeeded and the instruction following the associated then clause is executed. If all the expressions evaluate to 0 and an else was given then the instruction after t
But not many useful ones.
Mike
_
From: Rony G. Flatscher [mailto:rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at]
Sent: 06 September 2020 18:13
To: oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Oorexx-devel] Short cutting logical operators
On 06.09.2020 18:42, Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
On 05.09.2020 21:48, Mik
On 06.09.2020 18:42, Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
>
>
> On 05.09.2020 21:48, Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
>> Rony, this was added to NetRexx back in the 1990s.
>
> yes, this also meant that translating NetRexx to Java would be
> straight-forward, but NetRexx
> broke compatibility with Rexx i
On 05.09.2020 21:48, Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
Rony, this was added to NetRexx back in the 1990s.
yes, this also meant that translating NetRexx to Java would be
straight-forward, but NetRexx broke compatibility with Rexx in that respect
(which has not been a problem).
I don't follow .. th
On 9/5/2020 3:48 PM, Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
Rony, this was added to NetRexx back in the 1990s.�� ooRexx does it
differently, for whatever reason.�� Whatever the case, it is always
better to 'spell out' the short-circuits in the code rather than rely
on weird notations, surely?�� That
em in ooRexx.
---rony
>
>
> Original message
> From: "Rony G. Flatscher"
> Date: 9/5/20 13:40 (GMT-06:00)
> To: oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Oorexx-devel] Short cutting logical operators
>
> On 04.09.2020 15:17, Erich Steinböck wrote:
keep
everything simple.
So the challenge then is to still keep the ooRexx language small, easy to
read, to memorize and
to maintain. Maybe using operators with semantics they carry already in
Rexx/ooRexx may help to
keep the language as simple as possible.
---rony
>
>
Hi Thom,
I believed the computer did the short circuiting automatically on these
> boolean expressions.
>
In ooRexx expressions are wholly evaluated, unless an error occurs during
evaluation, no short-cut evaluation like in C.
Seems like var++ might be more a useful shortcut than var = var + 1
>
and, more importunately, usable
-- to most people.
Mike
--
*From:* Rony G. Flatscher [mailto:rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at]
*Sent:* 05 September 2020 19:30
*To:* oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
*Subject:* Re: [Oorexx-devel] Short cutting logical operators
On 04.09.2020 15:51, M
learn.Thanks,ThomSent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S7 edge.
Original message From: "Rony G. Flatscher"
Date: 9/5/20 13:40 (GMT-06:00) To:
oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Oorexx-devel] Short cutting
logical operators
On 04.09.2020 15:17, Erich
wu.ac.at]
Sent: 05 September 2020 19:30
To: oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Oorexx-devel] Short cutting logical operators
On 04.09.2020 15:51, Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
I think you all know my opinion on weird notations in languages that are
only known and used by a few 'elite' progra
On 04.09.2020 15:17, Erich Steinböck wrote:
> I'm in favor of this proposal.
> To follow our existing shortcut-style with commas (note that although almost
> all of our current
> comma-shortcuts are AND-style, we also have an OR-style comma-shortcut for a
> WHEN in a SELECT
> CASE) we might use a
nyone who comes from
C/++/# or Java?
---rony
>
>
>
> *From:* Erich Steinböck [mailto:erich.steinbo...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 04 September 2020 14:22
> *To:* Open Object Rexx D
Steinböck [mailto:erich.steinbo...@gmail.com]
Sent: 04 September 2020 14:22
To: Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Oorexx-devel] Short cutting logical operators
You're right.
I've often wondered whether a method call really *must* evaluate all its
arguments upfront.
What about l
You're right.
I've often wondered whether a method call really *must* evaluate all its
arguments upfront.
What about lazy evaluation? Only evaluate an argument when it is actually
required, i. e. accessed for the first time?
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 3:17 PM Rick McGuire wrote:
> Hmmm, I found an a
I'm in favor of this proposal.
To follow our existing shortcut-style with commas (note that although
almost all of our current comma-shortcuts are AND-style, we also have an
OR-style comma-shortcut for a WHEN in a SELECT CASE) we might use and-comma
(&,) and or-comma (|,) as operators.
On Fri, Sep
Hmmm, I found an awkward bit with this proposal. For the operators, these
are all transformed into method calls under the cover, so "a | b" gets
executed as "a~'|'(b)", where the object on the left hand side does the
evaluation of the condition. This allows any class to override the '|' and
'&'. Wi
18 matches
Mail list logo
