Mike Cowlishaw wrote:
There is a third path that one might consider, if it makes sense (in
particular, the package needs to have some kind of persistent
state, or
able to get at some from the Rexx implementation), and that is:
let the
user choose.
APL (I think it was) does
That's interesting. I played around with Forth back in the mid-70's and, while
I have never been a fan of RPN, I remember being impressed with its flexibility.
What I don't remember is there being any sort of list construct that took an
index. None of the stacks did. Then again, there were a
Chip Davis wrote:
That's interesting. I played around with Forth back in the mid-70's and,
while
I have never been a fan of RPN, I remember being impressed with its
flexibility.
What I don't remember is there being any sort of list construct that took an
index.
: regards ( --) 2 0 do S
Nah, we did that in Forth too.
...and Assembler, but my opinion on the matter is that everything in Rexx
ought to act like Rexx. It should be consistent. I can't imagine anything
uglier than having some parts of the language be 1-based and other parts be
0-based. That situation would cause far
2010-01-11 Mike Cowlishaw m...@uk.ibm.com:
There is a third path that one might consider, if it makes sense (in
particular, the package needs to have some kind of persistent state, or
able to get at some from the Rexx implementation), and that is: let the
user choose.
APL (I think it was)
I REALLY like this idea. It is the best of both worlds and easy to
implement with a small set of C macros. Allowing the user to change the
behaviour gives the user the feeling of control and enhances their level
of comfort whatever their choice might be.
Thanks for the idea, Mike.
David
You need to be careful that this is not a global setting. I can
easily envision reusable libraries of code being written that uses
these facility. Any dialogs should be work without messing up
unrelated code pieces where the author prefers a different style.
Rick
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:40
On 1/11/10 20:29 John Bodoh asked:
Is a programmer thinking zero based or one base when they are programming
for REXX?
All _people_ start lists with '1'.
All _programmers_ (before the mid-seventies) started lists with '1'.
_Only_C_programmers_ adjust their thinking to start lists with '0'.
Chip Davis wrote:
_Only_C_programmers_ adjust their thinking to start lists with '0'.
Nah, we did that in Forth too.
--
Jack J. Woehr# Reality is unpredictable, and no amount of computer
technology
http://www.well.com/~jax # is going to change that. - David Brooks,
I am working on an ooRexx interface to something that is normally
programmed in C. Of course, C uses zero-based indexes for thing like
memory, array positions, etc. My code could be architected to either
carry this forward to the ooRexx interface when it calls the C functions
or it could
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 9:43 AM, David Ashley david.ashley@gmail.com wrote:
I am working on an ooRexx interface to something that is normally
programmed in C. Of course, C uses zero-based indexes for thing like
memory, array positions, etc. My code could be architected to either
carry this
David,
Unlike the respondents so far, I do have a strong opinion (to the surprise of
no
one, I'm sure). My conviction is based on philosophical grounds because all
the
other reasons are ephemeral, and you are about to cast something in stone.
If you are creating something to be used by a
12 matches
Mail list logo
