Yes .. that was a poor design decision by me.Violates the 'surprise'
criterion (as you just demonstrated).
Still, I've yet to see a programming language that avoids that as well as
Rexx did (especially in 1979 context)!
Mike
_
From: Ruurd Idenburg [mailto:ru...@idenburg.net]
I was just curious and I really should have known better, having used
rexx since 1979, but still was a bit surprised
when gotten hit by it, so now it is:
zoom=12;x=13;y=3;loc=zoom'/'||x'/'y'.png'
Ruurd
On 7/28/20 8:21 PM, Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
The same is true for '10001010'b .. a change
The same is true for '10001010'b .. a change that unexpectedly broke some
important applications when we introduced it (e.g., LISTSERV).
I'd use a different notation, nowadays, for hex and binary constants (see
NetRexx). Sometimes I tried too much to follow the conventions of earlier
languages.
Yes, a literal string followed immediately by the symbol x is considered a
hex literal. It's always been that way.
Rick
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:54 PM Ruurd Idenburg wrote:
> Is the result below what should be expected: 'something'x taking
> precedent over implied concatenation?
>
> Ruurd
>
>
Is the result below what should be expected: 'something'x taking
precedent over implied concatenation?
Ruurd
'rexx -v'
Open Object Rexx Version 5.0.0 r12100
Build date: Jul 21 2020
Addressing mode: 64
Copyright (c) 1995, 2004 IBM Corporation. All rights reserved.
Copyright (c) 2005-2020 Rexx
