Date:         Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:33:03 -0800
Reply-To:     REXX Programming discussion list <REXXLIST@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Sender:       REXX Programming discussion list <REXXLIST@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
From:         "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <nospam@GSG.EDS.COM>
Organization: EDS MS
Subject:      Re: Why REXX is not my favorite scripting language (was Re:
              regular expression matching)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Steve Bacher wrote:
 
>
> What's the big deal about doing
>
>  foo="$1"; bar="$2"; baz="$3"
 
$1, $2, and $3 <g>. The fact that you can assign these numeric argument
references to symbols doesn't make them symbols.
 
> in your favorite Unix-based scripting language?
 
REGINA <g, d & r>
 
> Of course, what those "proper" conventions are is debatable, and
> we certainly don't want to open up the DO-END debate again, do we?
 
Whether to line up the closing construct with the opening construct or
with the enclosed code may be debatable, but I stand on the claim that a
consistent indentation style makes programs easier to read and to
maintain. Just about *any* consistent convention is better than changing
it on the fly, or not indenting at all.
 
> Btw, SELECT in REXX is available but hobbled, and my desire to see it
> made closer to PL/1 SELECT or Bourne shell "case" was thwarted.
 
Well, there we agree. IMHO the most serious fault of REXX is that it
ressembles PL/I yet interprets statements in a fashion greatly at
variance with the expectations of the PL/I programmer. I consider it
poor language design to imitate the syntax of another language without
doing it thouroughly.
 
--
 
                        Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
                        Senior Software SE
 
The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers:
reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com,
user smetz. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org