Posted by
Massimiliano Marsiglietti on
URL: http://ibm-netrexx.48.s1.nabble.com/Since-NetRexx-is-Java-tp678080p678081.html
Ciao,
Brad wrote:
> One of the Reasons I suggested using the ++ and *= is because it is
> found in native Java. If NetRexx catches on with native Java
> programmers as an alternative and easier way to write Java code they
> are going to be expecting to be able to use the ++, +=, *=, etc.
Eh, I can understand your point of view.. On the other hand, one
could say that NetRexx isn't Java or, better, that we've come here
because we wanted a 'gentler' Java (thus running away from the very
same ++, += notation or even the ton of unnecessary (){}s).
> What do you all think?
I think, out of the COBOL joke, (fortunately Cri now is some 20 miles
away, on a 5250 terminal that keeps her from reading my mail) that
there could be a more 'understandable', yet practical, solution. In
my (humble, admittedly) opinion, one step forward would be to find a
way to give a face to the object of the operation; my problem is that
with '+=' one has to guess that it means:
var = var + something
while I could find acceptable the introdution of a new keyword, like
'itself' (or 'it', 'that', whatever) for example, as in:
You_dont_want_a_name_longer_than_this = itself + 1
because it would show which is the object that the calculation is
based upon.
Va beh, ci ho provato.. :-)
Max
(Busy writing documentation for my first NetRexx beans)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to
[hidden email]
with the following message in the body of the note
unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address>