I am most definitely not trying to redefine how OVER works and really can't
for compatibility reasons. I'm trying to address the situations where
iteration over a collection where both the item and index are significant
and having the loop instruction handle a lot of the details to prevent
errors. Supplier was supposed to be that iterator mechanism, but by
itself, is proving to be hard to use and error prone.
Right now, I'm finding I'm not comfortable about how the parsing of this
instruction has to proceed. The validity of the list of variables cannot
be determined until you encounter the WITH keyword. I think this can work,
but perhaps we should try some other approaches. Maybe something
completely keyword based?
loop with index i item v over x
The with keyword indicates you have multiple variables, the item and index
keywords indicate which variable gets which value, removing the argument
about what is the appropriate order to specify these... and one or the
other variable can be optional, depending what you need. The OVER keyword
can still be used, but know the loop can examine the result and decide what
the most appropriate iteration means should be for the type of object it
receives.
Rick
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Brandon Cherry <bran...@safedatausa.com>
wrote:
> On 10/11/2014 7:22 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> > Right now, I'm thinking I quite like Walter's suggestion of using WITH
> > as the keyword. I think it should be possible to also make the second
> > variable optional, which would make is similar to DO OVER, but not
> > necessarily identical, because the single variable will either be always
> > an index or always a value, where DO OVER assignments are determined by
> > what the OVER object returns for MAKEARRAY.
> >
> > Rick
>
> I would like "with" to be reserved for something like a resource that
> needs to be setup and torn down. That is how this instruction is
> currently used in other languages. Using it for what is proposed will be
> just another quirk to ooRexx and make it harder for people who might be
> switching from another language.
>
> Here are some examples:
>
> -- file is closed
> do file with handle
> -- file is opened
> char = handle~charin(1)
> end
> -- file is closed
>
> Exact syntax I am not sure of but the basic idea being that "file" would
> be some arguments defining file path and open type. The "handle" being
> the variable you can reference in the do block. This could also make
> working with semaphores, sockets, and who knows what else easier, too.
>
> Have you given some thought to just defining an iterator class and
> making the "over" instruction only handle iterators? I have generally
> assumed that supplier is suppose to be the closest thing in ooRexx that
> is similar to that. Something to think about since you are wanting to
> redefine how "over" works.
> --
> Brandon Cherry
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
> Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
> Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
> Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Zoho
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
