Hi Jon,
On 13.10.2025 14:07, Sahananda wrote:
Sorry, there was a typo. In my suggested sentence, the first 'set' is redundant as what is being
set is called the 'package options', not the 'set package options'.
The first part of the sentence should therefore read:
*This method retrieves the current package options,*
I have difficulty with the rest of the sentence as I am not sure what you are saying. Perhaps it
would be better as two sentences:
*This method retrieves and optionally sets the current package options. The package options may
also be set explicitly using the ::options directive.*
I'm not sure whether the word 'modifies' should replace the word 'sets'? If (and I think this is
the case) there will always in every circumstance be a previous value to the package options when
this method is called, I think '*modifies*' is better here. If there is some circumstance where
this method can be used to initialise the package options (and I don't think that is possible)
then imho '*sets*' would be clearer.
Again, I'm still not sure how the adverb '*explicitly*' modifies the meaning in this context.
Perhaps if you said a couple of sentences about that I could venture an opinion.
Again, I hope this is helpful,
Yes, very much so, and thank you very much for taking the time!
Maybe a few more infos after reading your thoughts: this 'options' method without argument returns a
string formatted as an ::OPTIONS directive showing all options in effect for the package. In
addition it allows to query and set any option that can be listed on the ::OPTIONS directive,
whereby always the value at method invocation time gets returned.
However, this method is also meant for allowing for defining the package settings that should be
used to override the package settings when loading programs/packages which then determine the
package settings that should be in effect. To make this even more flexible there is an idea of
turning on/off the overriding behaviour not only with a switch, but even allowing to optionally
define the number of overrides that should take place, including "infinity". This is still in infant
stage, but eventually this should become available (currently implementing that part).
Not sure whether that clarifies it, as it is work in progress (WIP) and cannot be tested yet. (Once
that part works one could use that infrastructure then to allow for supplying override options when
starting a Rexx program.)
HTH
---rony
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
