Work at SourceForge, help us to make it a better place! We have an immediate need for a Support Technician in our San Francisco or Denver office.

Close

#183 Doc Change RexxRef: Implementation Maximum

v4.2.0
closed
Rick McGuire
None
1
2014-04-15
2013-12-10
Erich
No

I suggest the following changes to "Implementation maximum" paragraphs in RexxRef.
The attached Patch applies all of the suggested changes.


5.1.3.32. d2c and 7.4.21. D2C: "Implementation maximum: The returned/output string must not have more than 250 significant characters, although a longer result is possible if it has additional leading sign characters ("00"x and "FF"x)."
5.1.3.33. d2x and 7.4.22. D2X: "Implementation maximum: The returned/output string must not have more than 500 significant hexadecimal characters, although a longer result is possible if it has additional leading sign characters (0 and F).

None of the above mentioned restrictions seem to apply any more. Below example works fine, so I suggest deleting above paragraphs.

rexx -e "numeric digits 5000; say d2x(copies('3',5000))"

I also suggest deleting the words "Implementation maximum:" from the following paragraphs (just those two words, the following description is suggested to be kept):
1.10.4.1. Literal Strings: "Implementation maximum: A literal string has no upper bound on the number of characters, limited on by available memory."
1.10.4.2. Hexadecimal Strings: "Implementation maximum: The packed length of a hexadecimal string (the string with whitespace removed) is unlimited."
1.10.4.3. Binary Strings: "Implementation maximum: The packed length of a binary-literal string is unlimited."


The following "Implementation maximum" paragraphs should be kept as-is:
1.10.4.5. Numbers: "Implementation maximum: The exponent of a number expressed in exponential notation can have up to nine digits."
7.4.65. TIME: "Implementation maximum: If the number of seconds in the elapsed time exceeds nine digits (equivalent to over 31.6 years), an error results."


Regarding the current limit of 255 parameters for MIN(), MAX() built-ins, and min() and max() methods: should we change the current wording "You can specify any number of numbers. " to Implementation maximum: a maximum of 255 numbers may be specified, otherwise results are unpredictable." ?

1 Attachments

Discussion

  • Rick McGuire
    Rick McGuire
    2013-12-11

    Committed trunk [r9681] and 4.2.0 branch [r9682]

    Not going to do anything with the mix/max issue. That is an accepted bug and will be fixed at some point. This is not an issue that anybody other than someone attempting to test the limits would ever encounter, so any sort of note here would just clutter up the docs.

     

    Related

    Commit: [r9681]
    Commit: [r9682]


Anonymous


Cancel   Add attachments