Charles Mills writes: <begin snippet> What does that have to do with LE? No other platform that I know of has LE, but on every platform cannot a C function trivially call another C function? Otherwise wouldn't every C program have to consist simply of one humongous main()? </end snippet>
and I concede that I know of no C implementation that supports only 'one humongous main()'; but 1) that was not my point and 2) it is a tendentious, systematically obtuse interpretation of my words. Let me try again. Calling sequences, environments, parameter-passing conventions, and the like differ from one implementation to another of, say, C. Within a single such implementation detailed knowledge of these things is not usually required. It is enough to use correct syntax. When, however, one wishes to communicate from one SLPL to another, things change. One needs to know more about implementation details; things that can and usually do remain implicit in the simpler case must now be made explicit; and for pairs of IBM-supported languages both of which use the Language Environment to do much of their work for them, LE manuals are a good place, often the only place, to find such information. The choice in such situations is between finding and consulting the relevant manuals, whatever they may be called, and reliance upon an afflatus, which may be long in coming. This said, life is short; and I shall not respond again to CM's posts. He can, I am sure, get along very well without my responses; and I can find better things to do with my time. On 2/21/12, Charles Mills <[email protected]> wrote: > Also remember when perusing the LE publications that the inventors of LE in > their wisdom thought it would be too clear to the uninitiated to call the > languages dependent on Language Environment "languages," choosing instead to > further overload the word "member." > >> it is made easy, for one C function to call another C function > > What does that have to do with LE? No other platform that I know of has LE, > but on every platform cannot a C function trivially call another C function? > Otherwise wouldn't every C program have to consist simply of one humongous > main()? > > Charles > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of John Gilmore > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:24 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Do what to get C strftime %z to work? > > The heavy irony in the rhetorical question > > | Why did I think that there might be a clue to the "C/C++ signature > | CSECT" in the C/C++ documentation? > > is understandable. Moreover, Chris Mason's manner does annoy some people; > but it would be unwise to ignore the substantive content of his posts for > this reason. > > Things do not always appear where one would like to find them in IBM > publications; and his example is a valuable illustration of how to find them > when they do not. > > Moreover, a good ROT to keep in mind is that things not found in the IBM > manuals for a particular statement-level procedural language may well be > found in its LE manuals and in particular in the ILC discussions in these LE > manuals, which contain useful detail that can be found nowhere else. > > Moreover again, this is unsurprising. It is easy, because it is made easy, > for one C function to call another C function. It s not so easy to induce > Java to call C successfully. To do this one needs to know more, and that > more is just what is addressed in ILC discussions. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
