Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-22 Thread James Gray
10:10 PM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features I can assure you that the SACC would like nothing more than to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the user/programmer. The issue here is whether relaxing limits like the restriction on string lengths would break existing applications

Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-22 Thread Greg Woodhouse
] To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 10:10 PM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features I can assure you that the SACC would like nothing more than to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the user/programmer. The issue here is whether relaxing limits like

Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-20 Thread smcphelan
(EDS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:45 PM Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features Maybe it's a case of reductio ad absurdum but if I have a long arithmetic list like: 5+9+33+87-92+28+77*4-15-61+88+342 why in the world would

Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-20 Thread Doctor Bones
adopted a Western perspective. - Original Message - From: Holloway, Thomas (EDS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:45 PM Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features Maybe it's a case of reductio ad absurdum but if I

RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-18 Thread Holloway, Thomas (EDS)
If and Write? I vote left-to-right (as if this were a decision that had to be made.) Thom H. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Self Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:06 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members

RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-18 Thread Greg Woodhouse
Think back to high school algebra. You know what I binomial is: it's a polynomial consisting of two terms. What's a term? --- Holloway, Thomas (EDS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe it's a case of reductio ad absurdum but if I have a long arithmetic list like:

Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-17 Thread Greg Woodhouse
Responses inline below --- Jim Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Woodhouse wrote: I guess what I had in mind with the baseball analogy is to rate One of the best things about MUMPS for me is how very little it reminds me of baseball. ;) Sitting around doing nothing for hours while

RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-17 Thread Greg Woodhouse
That's a good point. Of course, polymorphism works at the object level, essentially extending function overloading to types. The problem (or not, depending on your point of view) is that objects are only polymorphic within an inheritance hierarchy. Another problem is that creating derived classes

RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-17 Thread Greg Woodhouse
Which language are you referring to? Ada? PL/1? Honestly, I don't know either of those languages, so I couldn't say whether they use a single level of precedence. Languages I have used include Basic, Visual Basic, C, C++, Pascal, Object Pascal, MUMPS, Java, Perl, Python, Fortan 77, Franz LISP and

[Hardhats-members] MUMPS features (was: Command Abbreviations)

2005-08-16 Thread Gregory Woodhouse
Fair enough. I suppose I was focusing more on ...the one data type in MUMPS than the statement that typing is contextually derived. I would consider those two assertions mutually contradictory, but that is a minor point. The important thing is the type polymorphism based on context, as you

Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Greg Woodhouse
D) Trimmed, SET J=$ORDER(X()) KILL:J X(J) E) Killed, KILL X More later. - Original Message - From: Gregory Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:09 AM Subject: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Richard G. DAVIS
From: Gregory Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:09:00 -0700 To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features ... . or a double (such as being able to intermix numbers

RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Sowinski, Richard J.
. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Woodhouse Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 3:51 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features Hmm...I hesitate to do this, for fear of forgetting something

Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread whitten
I believe that within the context of a global subscript, the values are all strings. No distinction is made between what one may call 'numbers' and all other concatenations of characters. Only as the subscript values are interpreted outside of the context of an global subscript value do

Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread smcphelan
-members] MUMPS features I believe that within the context of a global subscript, the values are all strings. No distinction is made between what one may call 'numbers' and all other concatenations of characters. Only as the subscript values are interpreted outside of the context of an global

RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Cameron Schlehuber
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features Hmm...I hesitate to do this, for fear of forgetting something, but my MUMPS greatest hits list, includes at least 1. Global arrays 2. Hierarchical arrays in general, and especially the ability to store values at non-leaf nodes. 3. An integrated JOB

RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Greg Woodhouse
answer? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Woodhouse Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:51 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features Hmm...I hesitate to do this, for fear

RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Gary Monger
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Woodhouse Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:51 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features Hmm...I hesitate to do this, for fear of forgetting something, but my MUMPS greatest hits list, includes at least 1. Global

RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Greg Woodhouse
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Woodhouse Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:51 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features Hmm...I hesitate to do this, for fear of forgetting something, but my MUMPS greatest hits list, includes

RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Cameron Schlehuber
experience, can still get me into trouble sometimes. To each his own. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Woodhouse Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:06 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Cameron Schlehuber
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Woodhouse Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:51 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features Hmm...I hesitate to do this, for fear of forgetting something, but my MUMPS greatest hits list

RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Greg Woodhouse
Yes. --- Cameron Schlehuber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, shouldn't your answer have been 14 and not 16 (I'm assuming base 10)? === Gregory Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] Design quality doesn't ensure success, but design failure can ensure failure. --Kent Beck

Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread James Gray
:15 PM Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features There's a more basic issue, too. If your expression grammar is something like I have no idea what these next two lines mean. E ::= T | E + T | E - T T ::= N | N * T | N / T where N is a number, then [2 + [3 * 4]] is a valid parse

Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Greg Woodhouse
@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 5:15 PM Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features There's a more basic issue, too. If your expression grammar is something like I have no idea what these next two lines mean. E ::= T | E + T | E - T T ::= N | N * T | N / T

Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Jim Self
richard Davis wrote: I believe that within the context of a global subscript, the values are all strings. No distinction is made between what one may call 'numbers' and all other concatenations of characters. Only as the subscript values are interpreted outside of the context of an global

Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Jim Self
Greg Woodhouse wrote: I guess what I had in mind with the baseball analogy is to rate One of the best things about MUMPS for me is how very little it reminds me of baseball. ;) Sitting around doing nothing for hours while watching a few dozen men mostly doing nothing waiting for a rare moment

RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Gary Monger
] On Behalf Of Greg Woodhouse Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:36 PM To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features That's a good one, too. I'm all in favor of eliminating noise, by which I mean parts of the program that are required but not directly related

Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Jim Self
. DAVIS [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 5:11 PM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features I believe that within the context of a global subscript, the values are all strings. No distinction is made between what one may call

RE: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Jim Self
Gregory wrote: In every single language using infix notation (except MUMPS) that I'm familiar with 2 + 3 * 4 = 16, and it is a longstanding convention in mathematics that 2 + 3 * 4 is 2 + (3 * 4) not (2 + 3) * 4. It's not that I can't live with strict left to right evaluation, it's just that it's

Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features

2005-08-16 Thread Richard G. DAVIS
Of course! Doh! I am going back into my cave. :-) Richard. From: Jim Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:32:17 -0700 (PDT) To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MUMPS features richard