Re: [Oorexx-devel] USE ARG default values with references.

Just to make sure that no other misunderstanding occurs: the default value in USE ARG has been used/applied by ooRexx only, if an argument value was left out when invoking the routine. In the current implementation of a variable reference argument must be always supplied or otherwise a runtime

Re: [Oorexx-devel] USE ARG default values with references.

On 17.04.2018 18:53, Rick McGuire wrote: > No, you are not understanding the question. If you use  > > USE ARG >someVar > > Then the argument is always required. If that is the case then I would be surprised that although an argument was supplied (unexpectedly) a default value gets applied instead

Re: [Oorexx-devel] USE ARG default values with references.

No, you are not understanding the question. If you use USE ARG >someVar Then the argument is always required. An error will be raised if one is not provided and the reference is not to a matching type. Right now, if you use ">", the default value expression is not allowed. However, I was thinking

Re: [Oorexx-devel] USE ARG default values with references.

On 17.04.2018 16:18, Rick McGuire wrote: > Now that the spelling of the character has been sorted out, does anybody have > an opinion on the > actual question of this thread? > > Rick > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Rick McGuire > wrote: > > I have one addi

Re: [Oorexx-devel] USE ARG default values with references.

Now that the spelling of the character has been sorted out, does anybody have an opinion on the actual question of this thread? Rick On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: > I have one additional open issue with my variable references prototype, > and that's whether to support a d

Re: [Oorexx-devel] USE ARG default values with references.

carat has some compatibility problems with other Rexx interpreters that interpreted the carat as a logical not. I'd prefer to stay away from that. In any event, I just committed the changes to use '>' rather than '&'. :-))) Many thanks. Mike -

Re: [Oorexx-devel] USE ARG default values with references.

On 16.04.2018 16:21, Rick McGuire wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Rony G. Flatscher > wrote: > > On 16.04.2018 14:08, Rick McGuire wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Mike Cowlishaw > > wrote: >> >>

Re: [Oorexx-devel] USE ARG default values with references.

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: > On 16.04.2018 14:08, Rick McGuire wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Mike Cowlishaw > wrote: > >> >> >> One other point I should probably make related to this is that the >> referencing operator (currently spelled "&") ...

Re: [Oorexx-devel] USE ARG default values with references.

On 16.04.2018 14:08, Rick McGuire wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Mike Cowlishaw > > wrote: > >   > > One other point I should probably make related to this is that the > referencing operator > (currently spelled "&")   ... >  

Re: [Oorexx-devel] USE ARG default values with references.

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Erich Steinböck wrote: > One other point I should probably make related to this is that the >> referencing operator (currently spelled "&") >> > > Can this maybe done with existing ooRexx syntax? Like > `call routine alpha, .Reference~new(beta), gamma` and a simp

Re: [Oorexx-devel] USE ARG default values with references.

> > One other point I should probably make related to this is that the > referencing operator (currently spelled "&") > Can this maybe done with existing ooRexx syntax? Like `call routine alpha, .Reference~new(beta), gamma` and a simple `use a, b, c` Alternatives to `.Reference~new()` might be `

Re: [Oorexx-devel] USE ARG default values with references.

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Mike Cowlishaw wrote: > > > > One other point I should probably make related to this is that the > referencing operator (currently spelled "&") ... > > > I trust that spelling is still considered an open issue. :-) > > I'm warming to using '>' on both sides ..

Re: [Oorexx-devel] USE ARG default values with references.

One other point I should probably make related to this is that the referencing operator (currently spelled "&") ... I trust that spelling is still considered an open issue. :-) I'm warming to using '>' on both sides .. at least it implies some sort of movement/look elsewhere. My secon