Bahaviour of the TRACE *Directive* in NetRexx Statements

[ThSITC]

Hi Gentlewoman and Gentlemen,

    after some replies to issues raised by Bob Hamilton and others, not
so much related to ibm-netrexx,
I would like to go *back to some NetRexx points* again.


    I personally *think* that the behaviour of the TRACE DIRECTIVE
should be revised, when possible.

    When the TRACE clause does appear at the top of a program --
everything is OK, and prefectly designed.

    When, however, a TRACE ALL clause does appear *after a method
statement (clause)*, this same
TRACE remains to active for the whole (statically) following program unit.

     I do, however, have the OPINION, that those *imbedded TRACE
statements* shall & should be CLOSED
by default after a final RETURN of this nethod (whether explicit of
implied).

    Hence, the TRACE clause should NOt be handled as an ordinary clause.

    What do yo think, please (without raising any old *enemies* in the
group again).

    I would like to note, that I do personally (as always) do have NO
enemies, NOR unWANTED or unPleasent
persons at all... :-)

As I cannot attach sample files, tr it by your own:

     Insert a

trace *whatever*

a) after a class statement
b) after a method statement

And see, what is actually traced ... :-)

Quite UN-HUMAN, as far as I can recognize :-(

Greetings from dark Vienna,
Thomas.
================================================================================================

--
Thomas Schneider (Founder of www.thsitc.com) Member of the Rexx Languge
Asscociation (www.rexxla.org) Member of the NetRexx Developer's Team
(www.netrexx.org)

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Kermit Kiser]

Perhaps you should return to our world if you wish to deal with NetRexx,
Sir Thomas.

Neither the documentation nor my own testing show that NetRexx behaves
as you suggest. If you have found an example of behavior contrary to the
documentation, you need to file a bug report rather than start a
philosophy discussion.

-- Kermit


On 12/27/2011 1:18 PM, Thomas Schneider wrote:

> Hi Gentlewoman and Gentlemen,
>
>    after some replies to issues raised by Bob Hamilton and others, not
> so much related to ibm-netrexx,
> I would like to go *back to some NetRexx points* again.
>
>
>    I personally *think* that the behaviour of the TRACE DIRECTIVE
> should be revised, when possible.
>
>    When the TRACE clause does appear at the top of a program --
> everything is OK, and prefectly designed.
>
>    When, however, a TRACE ALL clause does appear *after a method
> statement (clause)*, this same
> TRACE remains to active for the whole (statically) following program
> unit.
>
>     I do, however, have the OPINION, that those *imbedded TRACE
> statements* shall & should be CLOSED
> by default after a final RETURN of this nethod (whether explicit of
> implied).
>
>    Hence, the TRACE clause should NOt be handled as an ordinary clause.
>
>    What do yo think, please (without raising any old *enemies* in the
> group again).
>
>    I would like to note, that I do personally (as always) do have NO
> enemies, NOR unWANTED or unPleasent
> persons at all... :-)
>
> As I cannot attach sample files, tr it by your own:
>
>     Insert a
>
> trace *whatever*
>
> a) after a class statement
> b) after a method statement
>
> And see, what is actually traced ... :-)
>
> Quite UN-HUMAN, as far as I can recognize :-(
>
> Greetings from dark Vienna,
> Thomas.
> ================================================================================================
>

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/