Gil, I agree with you on Rexx, writing it since it first came out on VM. Some of the other languages are a bit funky.
Scott On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 6:04 PM Paul Gilmartin < 0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 17:33:56 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > >Be careful what you ask for - you might get it. It's one of the things > that I don't like about REXX. > > > >ObHamlet "And make us rather bear those semicolons we have, then fly to > continuation conventions that we know not of" > > > ( C 'then' 'than') > > Why? I find Rexx pleasantly consistent there: > An instruction is terminated by: > o A newline not preceded by a comma > o Or a semicolon > Spaces are irrelevant > Newline and semicolon are highly interchangeable. > > Compare POSIX shell conventions. Are they even documented? For example: > 542 $ for I in 1 2 > > do > > echo $I > > done > OK, but: > 544 $ for I in 1 2; do; echo $I; done > -sh: syntax error near unexpected token `;' > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Scott Ford IDMWORKS z/OS Development ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
