On 2022-07-13 04:46:47 Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
> While working more and more with "address...with" there is one observation:
> if not using stems for output one must place separate statements to create
> the collection objects (usually arrays) for output and error.
>
> E.g. using stems:
>
> ADDRESS SYSTEM some_command WITH OUTPUT stem stemOut. ERROR stem
> stemErr.
>
> whereas using an array instead one must code:
>
> arrOut=.array~new
> arrErr=.array~new
> ADDRESS SYSTEM some_command WITH OUTPUT USING (arrOut) ERROR USING
> (arrErr)
>
> The stem solution implicitly creates the stem objects alleviating the
> programmer from having to supply two additional statements that create the
> stem objects.
>
> In all other cases one must create the array objects excplicitly and use a
> different syntax with the option USING and having the variable in
> parentheses.
>
> It would be great if it was possible to use the stem syntax for all
> collection objects at least for arrays, such that one could state:
>
> ADDRESS SYSTEM some_command WITH OUTPUT array arrOut ERROR array arr
> Err
>
> So the token following OUTPUT or ERROR would denote the class of the
> variable that follows. If the variable does not exist, then it gets created
> using the denoted class.
>
> What do you think?
>
> ---rony
I agree; I don't see why the .stem variant should be easier than any
other, especially
since stems are hardly ever used with the more modern rexx constructs (e.g.
loop x over
y).
Leslie
--
Platform: Linux
Distribution: openSUSE Leap 15.4 x86_64
Open Object Rexx Version 5.0.0 r12286
Build date: Aug 12 2021
Addressing mode: 64
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
