Re: [netrexx-pipelines] Migrate OS/2 pipelines to NetRexx Pipes

[<hp...@we...>]

Hi Jeff!

Am 23.06.2022 um 05:09 schrieb Jeff Hennick:
> Thank you for your great comments and suggestions.

No problem, but please keep in mind, I'm a hobbyist, not a pro.
Thus my suggestions are biased rather by know-how than know-why.

> I too,  a long time ago,
> used and liked CMS Pipelines (although not loving the notation as much as
> Rexx's)

Here an example from "the Book" that looks nifty, methinks:

> /* Count number of logged-in users                       */
> signal on novalue
> address command               /* Send commands ...       */
> 'PIPE',                       /* ... directly to COMMAND */
>  'cp q n|',                   /* Perform QUERY           */
>  'cnctd|',                    /* Find connected users    */
>  'count lines|',              /* Count them              */
>  'spec /There are/ 1',        /* Literal field           */
>        '*-* nextword',        /* The input number        */
>        '/users connected./ nextw|',      /* More literal */
>  'cons'                       /* Display                 */

Matter of taste. (les goûts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas.)

> and when the possibility arose for PC use, I decided I'd add what I
> could.  I have not had CMS access for 30 years now, and never had any of IBM's
> sources.  Ours is all on the basis of the published specifications. Usually they
> are readable.  Occasionally they leave holes open to interpretation, and access
> to a CMS machine for the definitive answer would be useful.

Do you know Hercules? http://www.hercules-390.eu/
Dated, but works well for old pipes ;)

> Please read the NetRexx Pipelines documentation on the differences from CMS
> Pipelines.  There are a couple deep, fundamental, unavoidable differences.

I have to confess, up to now I only regarded the table of
differences. The notes on the first page of chapter 20 I read just
now for the first time. (Only a word about the last point, "To put
the content of a NetREXX variable in a pipe...", it depends on the
variables function, does it add a /variable/ part of the pipeline
the scanner must process, or is it source content to the pipeline.
In this case the canonical way is to use the var stage so the
scanner is not tempted to interpret it.)

> There are also builtin stages / options in each that will never be appropriate
> in the other.  (And, I like to think, some new NetRexx things that would be
> useful if implemented in CMS!)

I am almost uninformed about progress of the role model, my
[CMS-PIPELINES] folder shows > 1k unread, because most is about
changes out of reach for me.

> [...]

Best,
M.