Every language has pitfalls. While I generally prefer strongly typed languages, I find Rexx and ooRexx to be comfortable to work with, and it is not difficult to adapt to its quirks:
<http://www.rexxla.org/Newsletter/9812safe.html> <http://www.rexxla.org/Newsletter/9901safe.html> -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of David Crayford <00000595a051454b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 6:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Rexx numeric digits and scientific notation question REXX can indeed be quite tricky to navigate. I recently conducted a session titled "Python for REXX programmers" at work, and during the preparation, I was surprised (although not entirely) by the numerous traps and pitfalls inherent in REXX. When you add to this its absence of basic functionalities like sorting lists, it begs the question: Why opt for REXX when we have a plethora of alternatives available today? The obvious answer may be familiarity, but in our industry, this argument seems rather weak unless you're confined to a limited environment. After all, I wouldn't want to revert to using a 1990s-era flip-top phone, let alone a rotary dial from the 1970s. > On 16 Mar 2024, at 2:47 am, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote: > > Well, that explains a mystery. I did not realize that SIGNAL ON was pushed > and popped on subroutine calls. I have had this vague problem where my SIGNAL > ON NOVALUE did not seem to work but at the time of an error it is always > easier to fix the NOVALUE condition than troubleshoot the SIGNAL ON. > > Thanks! > Charles > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:04:00 -0500, Glenn Knickerbocker <n...@bestweb.net> > wrote: > >> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:01:30 -0500, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote: >>> And the answer is ... "The three numeric settings are automatically saved >>> across internal and external subroutine and function calls." >>> I was setting numeric digits in an initialization subroutine, so Rexx >>> helpfully unset it on return from initialization. I thought I had done it >>> that way before but I guess I have not. >> >> Funny, I work with a lot of code that has a common subroutine for retrieving >> a TRACE setting to set in the main routine, and I never even thought about >> why, or about all the stuff that gets saved across calls! From CALL >> HELPREXX on VM: >> >>> The status of DO loops and other structures: >> --though, importantly, not the *indices* of the loops! >>> Trace action: >>> NUMERIC settings: >>> ADDRESS settings: >>> Condition traps: (CALL ON and SIGNAL ON) >>> Condition information: >>> Elapsed-time clocks: >>> OPTIONS settings: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN