Menu
▾
▴
Re: [netrexx-pipelines] Migrate OS/2 pipelines to NetRexx Pipes
|
From: Jeff H. <Je...@Je...> - 2022-06-23 16:02:45
|
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Mike,</p>
<p>I too am and have been in the user/hobbyist category. I took a
very early retirement during a reduction in force, about 30 years
ago. Before that I was a CMS user for my primary job. (Although
that did eventually involve designing and implementing what
evolved into a full hypertext publication system in Rexx (and
later with Pipelines) 5 to 10 years earlier than WWW -- mid '80s.
The "browser" and the authoring used XEDIT with screens that
looked and felt like the PROFS email that my users were already
familiar with.) (The "pros" were astonished to find my Pipeline
could read, process, and write a large file in less time than
their hand tuned assembly program could read it.)<br>
</p>
<p>An example of what I mean by Rexxifying Pipelines, with your
example, is in Rexx statements end with ";" <b>or</b> an end of
line. Pipelines could use the same flexibility with stage
separators. NetRexx Pipelines at least don't need all those
quotes and commas (but doesn't support the comments; I had to add
a COMMENT stage, "--", which is not so flexible). Rexx is
specifically designed for human reading. Pipeline stage options
could use some more, optional, "fluff words," that would limit the
need for external comments/documentation.</p>
<p>All this is while I am procrastinating in trying to get the SPECS
and UNIQUE stages to compile and run in my test environment.</p>
<p>Jeff<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/23/2022 8:09 AM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:hp...@we...">hp...@we...</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:760...@we...">Hi Jeff!
<br>
<br>
Am 23.06.2022 um 05:09 schrieb Jeff Hennick:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Thank you for your great comments and
suggestions.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No problem, but please keep in mind, I'm a hobbyist, not a pro.
<br>
Thus my suggestions are biased rather by know-how than know-why.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I too, a long time ago,
<br>
used and liked CMS Pipelines (although not loving the notation
as much as
<br>
Rexx's)
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Here an example from "the Book" that looks nifty, methinks:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">/* Count number of logged-in
users */
<br>
signal on novalue
<br>
address command /* Send commands ... */
<br>
'PIPE', /* ... directly to COMMAND */
<br>
'cp q n|', /* Perform QUERY */
<br>
'cnctd|', /* Find connected users */
<br>
'count lines|', /* Count them */
<br>
'spec /There are/ 1', /* Literal field */
<br>
'*-* nextword', /* The input number */
<br>
'/users connected./ nextw|', /* More literal */
<br>
'cons' /* Display */
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Matter of taste. (les goûts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas.)
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">and when the possibility arose for PC use,
I decided I'd add what I
<br>
could. I have not had CMS access for 30 years now, and never
had any of IBM's
<br>
sources. Ours is all on the basis of the published
specifications. Usually they
<br>
are readable. Occasionally they leave holes open to
interpretation, and access
<br>
to a CMS machine for the definitive answer would be useful.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Do you know Hercules? <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.hercules-390.eu/">http://www.hercules-390.eu/</a>
<br>
Dated, but works well for old pipes ;)
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Please read the NetRexx Pipelines
documentation on the differences from CMS
<br>
Pipelines. There are a couple deep, fundamental, unavoidable
differences.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have to confess, up to now I only regarded the table of
<br>
differences. The notes on the first page of chapter 20 I read just
<br>
now for the first time. (Only a word about the last point, "To put
<br>
the content of a NetREXX variable in a pipe...", it depends on the
<br>
variables function, does it add a /variable/ part of the pipeline
<br>
the scanner must process, or is it source content to the pipeline.
<br>
In this case the canonical way is to use the var stage so the
<br>
scanner is not tempted to interpret it.)
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">There are also builtin stages / options in
each that will never be appropriate
<br>
in the other. (And, I like to think, some new NetRexx things
that would be
<br>
useful if implemented in CMS!)
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am almost uninformed about progress of the role model, my
<br>
[CMS-PIPELINES] folder shows > 1k unread, because most is about
<br>
changes out of reach for me.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">[...]
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Best,
<br>
M.
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
netrexx-pipelines mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:net...@li...">net...@li...</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/netrexx-pipelines">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/netrexx-pipelines</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
|
