RPL is alive and well. Realtime Software Corporation maintains the language
and has made many enhancements. For a short while back in '95 I was doing
minor assembler maintenance on it, and porting it to new AP and D3 releases.
Realtime also continues to maintain, enhance, and sell the BCP/MCS bu
y, February 06, 2004 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Proc or Para
> In a message dated 2/4/2004 11:40:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Earlier PQ proc didn't have read/write so they developed a sideline
language
> > called BATCH which did these tasks. BA
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Proc or Para
> In a message dated 2/4/2004 11:40:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Earlier PQ proc didn't have read/write so they developed a sideline
language
> > called BAT
In a message dated 2/4/2004 11:40:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Earlier PQ proc didn't have read/write so they developed a sideline language
> called BATCH which did these tasks. BATCH is officially removed from the
> direct decendancy of R80/83 as D3 doesn't recognize
ust :-(
It just WASN'T THERE on any system I ever worked with ...
Cheers,
Wol
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Mark Johnson
Sent: 05 February 2004 04:41
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: Re: Proc or Para
Here, Here!! I agree with Chuck o
>Yeah, they evolved, perhaps too far, but essentially it was
a simple
procedural tool.
>
>Wrong way round.
Huh? I said Procs in the PQ form came before PQN's... Waz
wrong wi' dat?
The evolution was PQ to PQN ... From simple batch (step 1 to
2 to 3) we
moved to labels (step 1 to 2 to (if a = b) th
D]
On Behalf Of Mark Johnson
Sent: 05 February 2004 04:41
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: Re: Proc or Para
Here, Here!! I agree with Chuck on the value of procs. Being a 25 year
proctologist myself allows me to support a wide variety of platforms.
Many
of my UD/UV/D3 clients, while having paragr
It's on every system that i have now covering many mv's. Not all, but many.
- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 3:06 AM
Subject: RE
>Yeah, they evolved, perhaps too far, but essentially it was a simple
procedural tool.
Wrong way round.
PROC began life with the ancestor of MultiValue - the GIRLS system. SMI
wrote a Language Extender (SMILE for GIRLS) that was a buffer driven minimal
reverse polish language that could handle bo
files.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Anthony Youngman
Sent: 05 February 2004 10:06
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Proc or Para
Old history now, but as a Pr1mate (as in used, not worked
for), I never
learnt (or even MET!) procs
ginal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Stuart Boydell
Sent: 05 February 2004 07:08
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Proc or Para
> Isn't it great to have choices.
Choice, yeah sure; but um, why wouldn't you ju
ever worked with ...
Cheers,
Wol
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Mark Johnson
Sent: 05 February 2004 04:41
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: Re: Proc or Para
Here, Here!! I agree with Chuck on the value of procs. Being a 25 year
proctol
> Isn't it great to have choices.
Choice, yeah sure; but um, why wouldn't you just write a program?
**
This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of addressed recipie
sn't it great to have choices.
my 1 cent.
- Original Message -
From: "Results" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: Proc or Para
> L,
> Proc predates
L,
Proc predates Pick BASIC as a programming language. The short answer
(to my mind) is that Paragraph is an add-on to
Access/English/AQL/Retrieve, but Proc is really a scripting language. If
you need to automate procedures, tie complex programs into a batch, or
do other heavy lifting, Proc
At 12:38 PM 02/04/2004, you wrote:
All,
Is there a performance advantage to using one or the other? I realize this
might be a touchy topic but it's one I've been wondering about for some
time. the ProVerb manual makes it sound like procs were a migration tool
of sorts.
Paragraphs are only sligh
Procs are definitely a subject that will start a good debate. I don't
think Procs offer any performance advantage at all. It does offer the
ability to do things that are possible in paragraphs like PROCWRITES. That
said, I personally have never been a fan of procs.
I started out in the Pick
17 matches
Mail list logo
