IMHO, yes. It keeps with the philosophy of general flexibility and "letting the programmer do what they want when they want" even if we can't think of a reason right now.
OREXXMan Q: What do you call the residence of the ungulate with the largest antlers? A: A moose pad. :-D Would you rather pass data in move mode (*nix piping) or locate mode (Pipes) or via disk (JCL)? Why do you think you rarely see *nix commands with more than a dozen filters, while Pipelines specifications are commonly over 100s of stages, and 1000s of stages are not uncommon. REXX is the new C. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 05:49 Rony G. Flatscher <[email protected]> wrote: > ooRexx being a dynamic language usually allows for defining, e.g. classes > statically with > directives, but also dynamically at runtime instantiating .class (and > creating and assigning methods > and the like). > > The ::options directive has become quite powerful and it would be helpful > to be able to a) query all > package's current settings and b) allowing to change the (::options > related) package settings at > runtime ("dynamic"). (Maybe a proper Options class may be helpful which > allows for interrogating and > setting options.) > > This may help in situations like using (maybe older) Rexx programs for > which some settings should be > changed (like "any syntax", but also "trace ..." comes to mind, etc.). > > Would that be seen as a desired improvement? > > ---rony > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Oorexx-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >
_______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
