The PTF for this APAR probably did not make it into the code, because TSO and CMS Rexx (for z/OS 2.3 and z/VM 6.4 at least) do not have a problem with setting numeric digits to 1 and then to 18.
/* */ numeric digits 1 say digits() numeric digits 18 say digits() numeric 1 18 At the moment, ooRexx is the only one I can find that behaves like this. best regards, René. > On 9 Nov 2020, at 15:00, Mike Cowlishaw <m...@speleotrove.com> wrote: > > And some more background .. if I recall correctly, this was set (corrected) > to work this way after an APAR (one of only two, ever) was raised for exactly > this case because the interpreter did NOT report it as an error whereas the > documentation implied that it should. There was some discussion in 1981 as > to whether there should be a minimum value for NUMERIC DIGITS (e.g., 3), but > it was hard to argue why that should be -- this would have been a cogent > argument if we'd thought of this case! :-) > > (Separately, the original REX error messages .. the 'headline' error messages > ... had to be really short because of the need to keep the interpreter within > 32KB (yes, KB) so that it would fit in less then half of one rotation of > paging drums ...) > > Mike > >> From: Rick McGuire [mailto:object.r...@gmail.com] >> Sent: 09 November 2020 13:47 >> To: Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [Oorexx-devel] Quirk of the Day >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:21 AM rvjan...@xs4all.nl >> <mailto:rvjan...@xs4all.nl> <rvjan...@xs4all.nl <mailto:rvjan...@xs4all.nl>> >> wrote: >>> Hi Walter, >>> >>> Yes, well, it could be a typo. I am worried about all other >>> implementations, including NetRexx and z/OS TSO, z/VM, Regina, brexx, etc, >>> being wrong if this is the right way. It certainly fails the (however >>> subjective) principle of least astonishment, and I also get the feeling the >>> ‘numeric digits’ statement is not necessarily meant for the next instance >>> of ‘numeric digits’. Changing the error message would go a long way: ‘with >>> numeric digits set to X, Y is not a valid positive whole number.’ >> >> The mainframe versions all behave the same way. I have had this conversation >> several times since 1982, almost always from a tester playing with setting >> digits to 1. >> >> >>> >>> I’ll put it on the list for the ARB. Who wants to be on the ARB? We have an >>> obligation to run an Architecture Review Board, as discussed during the >>> symposium. I am looking for volunteers. I suggest at least Erich and Rick >>> be on it. I suggest we do not convene more than once a quarter. >>> >>> René. >>> >>>> On 9 Nov 2020, at 13:59, WalterPachl via Oorexx-devel >>>> <oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> <mailto:oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Who on earth (except "us nasty testers") would ever issue ND 1???? >>>> I am much more concerned about the performance disaster I reported 2 or 3 >>>> weeks ago :-( >>>> Greetings >>>> WALTER >>>>> "Rony G. Flatscher" <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at >>>>> <mailto:rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at>> hat am 9. November 2020 um 11:31 >>>>> geschrieben: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 09.11.2020 10:35, Erich Steinböck wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This one stunned me! >>>>>> >>>>>> ~~~ >>>>>> numeric digits 1 >>>>>> numeric digits 18 >>>>>> -- Error 26.5: DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18". >>>>>> ~~~ >>>>> >>>>> Maybe enhancing the error message to indicate the current setting of >>>>> numeric digits which makes "18" >>>>> not a positive whole number would explain to the programmer why the error >>>>> occurs. Something like >>>>> "Error 26.5: DIGITS value must be a positive whole number; found "18" >>>>> (numeric digits is currently >>>>> set to 1 digit)." >>>>> >>>>> ---rony >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Oorexx-devel mailing list >>>>> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>>>> <mailto:Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >>>>> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Oorexx-devel mailing list >>>> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> <mailto:Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >>>> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Oorexx-devel mailing list >>> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> <mailto:Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >>> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel> > _______________________________________________ > Oorexx-devel mailing list > Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
_______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
