On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Jean-Louis
Faucher wrote:
> ok, I see your points.
> My attempt to use "expose" in a ::routine was because, to me (beginner), a
> :routine is similar to a procedure or a method (it's a piece of code that I
> can execute). I see "expose" allowed in procedure and in
ok, I see your points.
My attempt to use "expose" in a ::routine was because, to me (beginner), a
:routine is similar to a procedure or a method (it's a piece of code that I
can execute). I see "expose" allowed in procedure and in method (as a
beginner, I'm not supposed to master the difference bet
Jean-Louis,
Well Rick as usual was quicker typing than I. But, I also don't think
it is a good note to add.
The first sentence of the doc for expose says:
"EXPOSE causes the object variables identified in name to be exposed
to a method."
I think "to a method" is pretty clear.
--
Mark Miesfeld
No, I don't agree that this is an applicable note. There are many
other situations where expose is not applicable too (internal routine,
top-level program etc.). In general, documentation should describe
what something *does* do, not what it "doesn't*. Otherwise, it would
be equally applicable t
I spent half an hour fighting with oorexx, trying to convince it to accept
my "expose" on a ::routine.
At the origin, I made a wrong diagnostic because of the error message "Error
99.907: EXPOSE must be the first instruction executed after a method
invocation" : I thought it was because my ::routi
