Next discovery_
shouldn't syntax be raised here ?
x=random(10,100,999999999.1)
Say sourceline(1)
Say x
Output: using version REXX-ooRexx_5.0.0(MT)_32-bit 6.05 21 Oct 2014
x=random(10,100,999999999.1)
60
Last edit: Walter 2014-10-26
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
with the 64bit version seed may apparently be much larger
Parse Version v
Say 'Version='v
Numeric Digits 16
x=random(1,100,copies(9,18)'.33')
Say x
Output:
Version=REXX-ooRexx_5.0.0(MT)_64-bit 6.05 27 Oct 2014
69
The upper limit of random ist still 999999999
Last edit: Walter 2014-10-27
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I (no longer) bother for ancient IBM Manuals.
I DID quite a bit when I was there.
And there's more than just the 0 in this ticket.
Maybe there should be several different tickets but I'm not an Administrator.
Just a carful (nitpicking as Les calls it) Reader/user
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
'Ancient' doesn't mean 'wrong' or 'bad'. Millions of dollars were spent to get professional writers to write the original manuals and they've been constantly updated by input from thousands of users. To ignore all that is to waste your time.
The wrong page ref is probably because the formatter being used doesn't have the MANYPASS option that you're used to using with Script/VS on VM.
You originally opened this ticket as a Doc Bug, so your post about raising a syntax error should have been opened under Bugs. You don't have to be an Administrator to do that.
As for 64bit ooRexx: That doesn't necessarily change the limits. If you want it to, you should open an RFE.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
You originally opened this ticket as a Doc Bug, so your post about raising a syntax error should have been opened under Bugs. You don't have to be an Administrator to do that.
If I remember correctly, the implementation WAS changed without reflecting that in the doc.
But I may be wrong as sometimes.
Walter
PS by no means I would request that enhancement:-)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
BTW for whole number the index points to page 15 wheras the text is on page 14
(in rexxref 4.2)
Last edit: Walter 2014-10-26
Next discovery_
shouldn't syntax be raised here ?
x=random(10,100,999999999.1)
Say sourceline(1)
Say x
Output: using version REXX-ooRexx_5.0.0(MT)_32-bit 6.05 21 Oct 2014
x=random(10,100,999999999.1)
60
Last edit: Walter 2014-10-26
with the 64bit version seed may apparently be much larger
Parse Version v
Say 'Version='v
Numeric Digits 16
x=random(1,100,copies(9,18)'.33')
Say x
Output:
Version=REXX-ooRexx_5.0.0(MT)_64-bit 6.05 27 Oct 2014
69
The upper limit of random ist still 999999999
Last edit: Walter 2014-10-27
Be sure to have one of your IBM friends send in an RCF for the REXX/VM Reference, from which the text was taken.
I (no longer) bother for ancient IBM Manuals.
I DID quite a bit when I was there.
And there's more than just the 0 in this ticket.
Maybe there should be several different tickets but I'm not an Administrator.
Just a carful (nitpicking as Les calls it) Reader/user
'Ancient' doesn't mean 'wrong' or 'bad'. Millions of dollars were spent to get professional writers to write the original manuals and they've been constantly updated by input from thousands of users. To ignore all that is to waste your time.
The wrong page ref is probably because the formatter being used doesn't have the MANYPASS option that you're used to using with Script/VS on VM.
You originally opened this ticket as a Doc Bug, so your post about raising a syntax error should have been opened under Bugs. You don't have to be an Administrator to do that.
As for 64bit ooRexx: That doesn't necessarily change the limits. If you want it to, you should open an RFE.
If I remember correctly, the implementation WAS changed without reflecting that in the doc.
But I may be wrong as sometimes.
Walter
PS by no means I would request that enhancement:-)
Committed revision [r10919].
Related
Commit: [r10919]