I probably would use ":=" for assignment and "=" for equality.
Are you supporting SMF-like structures? -- 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 Rupert Reynolds <rreyno...@cix.co.uk> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 2:08 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Hmm, 3 ... (Re: Rexx numeric digits and scientific notation question It's too soon to publish much, especially when I have a full time job doing something else. To be honest I probably never will, because it only suits my pet bigotries :-) But briefly, I looked at day 1 notes (on back of a gas bill). They included these, not all of which will ever make it into use of course: . fairly terse {} syntax, borrowing from 'C' etc. . strongly typed by default . one type is bignum--arbitrary precision and base arithmetic, trig, logs . correctness and flexibility more important than speed (like external functions in Rexx scripts, for example) . project to include thorough test cases, and any bugs/unintended quirks in either impl or tests will be fixed ruthlessly, not supported. If it fails the test, it is not the real thing. . compiled code could include interpreter for scripting . preserves case, but keywords and functions etc. not case sensitive . all keywords can be abbreviated (eg. if min abbreviation is 3, 'fun' is same as 'function') . '=' not required for assignment! . ability to convert 'C' style strings and call 'C' code . all built-in functions for handling null-terminated data and UTF-16 to be prefixed gk_ (short for "ghastly kludge" ;-) ) Feel free to laugh/crjticise, but please be kind--I was drinking during lockdown when I finished that list :-) I made some progress on the bignum logarithms and trig early, borrowing heavily on the external Rexx functions I used under Windows. It does basics such as finding and moving files interpreted, so I can use it to test my Rexx admin scripts, and vice versa, but there are *huge* gaps, and I'm moving house this year, so... :-) Roops On Sun, 17 Mar 2024, 16:58 Seymour J Metz, <sme...@gmu.edu> wrote: > > I'm developing a language > > Have you published any details? > > -- > 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 Rupert Reynolds <rreyno...@cix.co.uk> > Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2024 9:07 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Hmm, 3 ... (Re: Rexx numeric digits and scientific notation > question > > My experience of modern scripting languages, compared with classic Rexx, is > that they all do something new more easily, but also I can't think of one > that doesn't have an obvious pitfall (such as, for example, stumbling badly > over certain byte values such as NUL in strings). > > Classic Rexx under TSO and Regina Rexx under Windows and Linux, despite > certain old-fashioned quirks, are still sometimes what I reach for when I > want to process some data while avoiding those pitfalls. > > The differences are so strong to me that I'm developing a language which is > effectively the best bits (IMHO) of Rexx, C and even older languages such > as Algol 68 (much underrated in my book) and hints of PL/1. I don't make > that much effort without reason :-) > > By definition it works the same interpreted or compiled, which brings a > couple of restrictions I'm willing to live with :-) > > Roops > p.s. I'm not convinced that that familiarity is a reason to criticise > choosing a language. Using something you know well is often a way of giving > bettet value and reliability for ones employers. > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Mar 2024, 11:49 David Crayford, < > 00000595a051454b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > Hey Rony, > > > > From what I understand, you haven't had experience working on z/OS. Let's > > stick to the topic and focus on discussing REXX as it functions on z/OS. > > This means no discussions about ooRexx or Java bridges, as they don't > exist > > and are unlikely to in the future on z/OS. > > > > The majority of REXX programmers here utilize classic TSO REXX and > > primarily work within a TSO/ISPF environment. In this setup, REXX lacks a > > module system. Therefore, any routines or libraries need to be manually > > copied and pasted wherever they're needed, or you have to create a > > pre-processor to merge source files together. If your language lacks the > > fundamental basic features to sort an array then to me that’s a good > > indication you should use one that does. > > > > I'm not spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). I'm simply stating > > my observations based on over 30 years of using REXX on z/OS, including > > developing extensions. I believe this gives me a significant level of > > expertise to offer commentary on the matter. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
