I'm always *wondering* why Netrexx does REPORT static Methods as Function's, but does Not allow the keyword FUNCTION for brevity. for clearness

[ThSITC]

Heelo there, Cracy Unle Thomas, speaking again!

Why do we not simply allow the KeyWords *Function*, as well as *Routine*
in Netrexx, please ?

A *static method* is reported as a *Function* by the NetRexx Compiler,
anyway.

So why, please, do we *not* allow the short terms:

Function abc(...)  *in addition to the more cumbersome* method abc(...)
static ?

Same question, of course, is for Routines ...

Adding those two *new Verbs* (namely Function, Routine) in addition to
the (more general)
*Method*

shall be *most natural for any and all human beeings*, and would simply
reduce confusion,
when reading the NetRexx Compiler output!

Human sense, *or* what, at all ?

Thomas Schneider

PS: Mike, we did discuss this, years ago, I do know.

But my *personal feeling* is, and was, that the Compiler Output should
show only
*terms* Defined in the language (and: *Function* is *not* defined in the
language, at all,
as far as I do know!

End of interrupt.
===================================================================
--
Thomas Schneider CEO ThSITC IT Consulting KG Erdbergstr. 52-60/1/13 1030
Wien http://www.thsitc.com Austria, Europe Skype ID:
Thomas.Schneider.Wien 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/