Paul, I agree that Rexx is Language, scripting or otherwise, you can compile it or interpret it and with Object rexx , its Object oriented..
Scott J Ford ________________________________ From: Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Mon, May 16, 2011 1:17:37 PM Subject: Re: "Under z/OS Unix" On Mon, 16 May 2011 08:42:32 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: >In <listserv%201105151611482534.0...@bama.ua.edu>, on 05/15/2011 > at 04:11 PM, Paul Gilmartin said: > >>certainly not in an interactive shell > >I'm not sure what you mean by an "interactive shell", nor why you >would describe Rexx as being one, but there is nothing in Rexx that >precludes compiling the entire file before executing any of it, and >some implementations do just that. Rexx is a scripting language, not a >shell. > I forked this fiber of the thread by musing: http://bama.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1105&L=ibm-main&P=80293 I've sometimes imagined Rexx as a shell language, but it has a couple severe flaws: ... We seem to be in considerably acrimonious agreement here. Because you trimmed the essence of my remark, then disputed what remained out of context. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
