Has anyone else in the MV world, besides OpenQM, done anything similar? Does the OpenQM approach accomplish everything you want? Too much? Could we ask IBM to conform to the syntax and functionality invented by OpenQM?
The only slight inconsistency in what Rick Nuckolls suggests and how Martin Phillips describes OpenQM, is that I see an implication that OpenQM allows variables to have global scope if not explicitly declared private. It seems natural to me to roll the request at the IBM Conference for limited variable scope into this current request for internal functions & subroutines. That was not a requirement in Adrian Womack's original proposal, Dec 17th. Let's make it one. I suggest we require IBM give us the ability to limit a variable's (labels, too, so "symbol" may be a better word) scope to the local subroutines. Whether they are inherently limited to the private routines, or will be global unless declared private, I am content to leave to IBM's discretion. Maybe the OpenQM conformity would dictate that. I think I'll go read their documentation. cds ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
