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

[René J. <rvj...@xs...>]

I’ll have a look at CP1047 which should be useful for USS. Let me scroll back into this thread to find which other problems can be solved.

René.

> On 26 Jun 2022, at 01:14, Jeff Hennick <Je...@Je...> wrote:
> 
> Great ideas.  Thank you.
> 
> The potential problem I see with undelimited strings here is all the key words become"reserved" as any can end the clause before it.  Is there any combination that it might cause a problem?
> 
> This is the first I have heard of a problem with XLATE/TRANSLATE, except that the various code pages are not supported "yet."  (I don't see much use, in the NetRexx world, for all the EBCDIC pages that CMS supports.)
> 
> These are the tests it currently passes:
> 
> 
>> -- xlate xrange char ?
>> -- xlate xrange char char char?
>> -- xlate ?
>> -- xlate xrange char char char (overlap)?
>> -- xlate xrange (multiple overlap)?
>> -- xlate pairs reversed ?
>> -- xlate xrange short-xrange ?
>> -- xlate short-xrange xrange ? 
> What am I missing?
> 
> Jeff
> 
> On 6/25/2022 6:30 PM, hp...@we... <mailto:hp...@we...> wrote:
>> Hi Jeff! 
>> 
>> Am 25.06.2022 um 05:56 schrieb Jeff Hennick: 
>>> [...] 
>>>>> Pipeline stage options could use some more, optional, "fluff 
>>>>> words," that would limit the need for external comments/documentation. 
>>> 
>>> Sorry for my miscommunication.  I do NOT advocate for fluffy stage names, at all. 
>> 
>> Well, as I misconceived it my comments are completely wrong. 
>> 
>>> The additional fluffy things that I do suggest are for pipelines that will have 
>>> to be read by a human, maybe the author or not, some time in the future, are in 
>>> the options.  CMS Pipelines stages can be very terse, which is very good for one 
>>> time pipes. 
>>> 
>>> What I have in mind are like this stage: [RRT view of 'change'] 
>> 
>> Thank you, now I see, your "fluff words" are 'filler', or more 
>> general 'grammatical particles'. Filler may be omitted without 
>> changing the predication. Yes, I remember, even the HP71-BASIC 
>> knows one or two of those, in execution just NOPs. 
>> 
>> Well, the idea is not new to communicate with the machine in 
>> natural human language (which is English in any case, no other 
>> language is more natural and more human, Siri will confirm it). 
>> Fullscreen-CMS once made some promising steps in this direction 
>> (pop window cmsout), and crawled back a bit in next release 
>> (window pop cmsout). 
>> 
>>> Now, those of us that grew up on or with XEDIT have no problem with just the 
>>> delimited changeString format, but for "normal" people, having the optional 
>>> words FROM, TO, and FOR make it much more understandable, although they add 
>>> nothing to working of the stage, and I personally would not use them in a 
>>> one-off pipe. They are, implied, defaults, so do not break any existing pipes 
>>> without them. 
>> 
>> FROM, TO, and FOR (I suggest also WITHIN and AND) would for sure 
>> make more sense if by using them the sequence of the arguments 
>> would become irrelevant _and_ the strings don't necessarily need 
>> to be delimited strings: 
>> 
>> Change within 3-8 and w2.3 for x to a from b  /* got it? */ 
>> 
>> Nice, but would you please be so kind and fix XLATE first? ;) 
>> 
>> Best, 
>> M. 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> netrexx-pipelines mailing list 
>> net...@li... <mailto:net...@li...> 
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/netrexx-pipelines <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/netrexx-pipelines> 
> _______________________________________________
> netrexx-pipelines mailing list
> net...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/netrexx-pipelines