Re: [Oorexx-devel] [DISCUSS] What should be the default numeric digits setting for 64-bit.

2009-02-27 Thread Mike Cowlishaw
The processor architecture only comes in to play with values that referred to as numbers used directly by Rexx. This is generally the internal digits setting used internally by bifs/methods, and for things like do loops. These are the places where a Rexx number need to be converted

Re: [Oorexx-devel] [DISCUSS] What should be the default numeric digits setting for 64-bit.

2009-02-27 Thread Rony G. Flatscher
Mike Cowlishaw wrote: The processor architecture only comes in to play with values that referred to as numbers used directly by Rexx. This is generally the internal digits setting used internally by bifs/methods, and for things like do loops. These are the places where a Rexx number

[Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Rick McGuire
I'm starting to come around to the position that the default digits setting should be 9 (not completely convinced yet, but close). However, I think that if this is done, then there are some additional things that need to be added. One is a ::options directive to allow these things to be tailored

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Mark Miesfeld
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Rick McGuire object.r...@gmail.com wrote: I'm starting to come around to the position that the default digits setting should be 9 (not completely convinced yet, but close). I'm not entirely convinced either. But, if you and Mike reach a consensus on it, then

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread René Jansen
For reasons unrelated to the numeric digits setting I am excited about the source scoped TRACE option! On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Rick McGuire object.r...@gmail.com wrote: I'm starting to come around to the position that the default digits setting should be 9 (not completely convinced

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread John Bodoh
Sound good to me. The keyword for use same as internal build-in setting should be something non-numeric. The word DEFAULT expresses some meaning while * is easier to code. Changing a NOVALUE condition to a SYNTAX condition would break code that I have that explicitly handles NOVALUE. John

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Rick McGuire
DEFAULT is not a good choice, since DEFAULT is 9, not the higher value value of 18 that is the target. * is also not a great choice, since Rexx has generally avoided using that as a wildcard option. Yes, but you'd only specify the NOVALUE option if you weren't doing that trapping. It would only

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread David Ashley
Mark Miesfeld wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Rick McGuire object.r...@gmail.com wrote: I'm starting to come around to the position that the default digits setting should be 9 (not completely convinced yet, but close). I'm not entirely convinced either. But, if you and Mike

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Gil Barmwater
Let me first say that I am in favor of a mechanism to globally specify the various items that have been proposed for ::options. But I am not clear on why this needs to be a new directive when the language and standard provide for the OPTIONS keyword. Any help would be appreciated :-) David

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Rick McGuire
The OPTIONS keyword instruction is an executable instruction that really only applies to the context in which it is executed. Directives are metadata that are outside of an execution context and apply to everything globally. As a directive, it can direct the language translater on how things

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Mike Cowlishaw
Let me first say that I am in favor of a mechanism to globally specify the various items that have been proposed for ::options. But I am not clear on why this needs to be a new directive when the language and standard provide for the OPTIONS keyword. Any help would be appreciated :-)

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Mark Miesfeld
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Rick McGuire object.r...@gmail.com wrote: The options are fairly self-explanatory, but I think there is a need for some keyword for DIGITS that means use the same as the internal built-in setting.  Looking for a name suggestion on that one. I think either

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Mike Cowlishaw
I'm starting to come around to the position that the default digits setting should be 9 (not completely convinced yet, but close). However, I think that if this is done, then there are some additional things that need to be added. One is a ::options directive to allow these things to be

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Mark Miesfeld
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Mike Cowlishaw m...@uk.ibm.com wrote: ::options digits 18 would mean that an initial digits setting of 18 will be used for all Rexx code created this source file.  This includes the main program, all routines declared using ::ROUTINE, and all methods.

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Mark Miesfeld
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Mike Cowlishaw m...@uk.ibm.com wrote: ::options digits 18 would mean that an initial digits setting of 18 will be used for all Rexx code created this source file.  This includes the main program, all routines declared using ::ROUTINE, and all methods.

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Rick McGuire
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Mike Cowlishaw m...@uk.ibm.com wrote: I'm starting to come around to the position that the default digits setting should be 9 (not completely convinced yet, but close). However, I think that if this is done, then there are some additional things that need to

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Mike Cowlishaw
::options digits 18 would mean that an initial digits setting of 18 will be used for all Rexx code created this source file. This includes the main program, all routines declared using ::ROUTINE, and all methods. Sounds good. (Remind me why it couldn't appear before the main

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Robert Garrett
How about: 9 ? :-) ::honest laughter here:: By the way, I want to personally thank you for making a large part of what I do and have done possible or at the very least, much easier and faster to accomplish. If you don't hear that frequently, you should. Robert

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Mike Cowlishaw
Sounds good. (Remind me why it couldn't appear before the main program?) Because I'm too lazy to make it happen :-) Currently, all directives need to appear after the main part of the program. It would be possible to allow them there, and perhaps in a future release I will, but right

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Rick McGuire
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Mike Cowlishaw m...@uk.ibm.com wrote: Sounds good.  (Remind me why it couldn't appear before the main program?) Because I'm too lazy to make it happen :-)  Currently, all directives need to appear after the main part of the program.  It would be possible to

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Thinking about an ::options directive.

2009-02-27 Thread Rick McGuire
Maybe in a future release. I still have a hope that 4.0 will manage to ship in my lifetime. Right now, I'm really trying to limit the number of new things we introduce here to a set that is useful with a minimal impact to the codeunless of course, there are volunteers who are willing to help