Hi Rick,
I searched the RFEs and found #140
http://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/feature-requests/140/ which requests
something like this and in the reason for rejection you explain the
difference between the original name and the registration name.
I sounds like to be useful, we would need a method
On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Sahananda (Jon) Wolfers
sahana...@windhorse.biz wrote:
Hi Rick,
I searched the RFEs and found #140
http://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/feature-requests/140/ which requests
something like this and in the reason for rejection you explain the
difference between
Since I'm in the process of rewriting the parser this might be a good time
to consider this point. For Method and Routine objects created from
directives, the source() method does not return the directive line. Should
it? This is a change to what is currently returned, which has the
potential
On 04.07.2014 12:33, Rick McGuire wrote:
... cut ...
Another option would be to add a separate method to get the directive source
line. That is a
little more work, but also doable. The advantage of doing that is the
information would also be
there for native routines and methods.
I would value a separate method for the name of the routine or method. I
would be happy to parse it out of the directive line text or perhaps it
should have it's own separate method.
Jon
On Jul 4, 2014 12:35 PM, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at
wrote:
On 04.07.2014 12:33, Rick McGuire
Wow, I would have assumed that was there already. Sounds like you should
open an RFE for this. But note that the name the object has is not
necessarily the same as the name it was called under.
Rick
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Sahananda (Jon) Wolfers sahana...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would
