- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - OpenVMS
- >
- Possible Alpha BASIC 1.6 compiler problem?
Operating System - OpenVMS
1752315
Members
5499
Online
108786
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
юдл
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
юдл
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-22-2010 01:48 PM
тАО02-22-2010 01:48 PM
Re: Possible Alpha BASIC 1.6 compiler problem?
Nature of the beast! Basic was never intended to be a strongly typed language.
"option type=explicit"
was added to give rudimentary protection against typos in variable names, but explicit typing doesn't imply anything about argument list checking. What might be of use here is another option, perhaps "arglists=strict" (or similar). However, the chances of that happening, given the support status of the product, are vanishingly small.
Unfortunately there are too many places where the Basic syntax for defining argument lists can't deal with all the possibilities, especially for routines in languages other than Basic. Thus, there has to be an escape mechanism to allow unchecked argument lists.
Basic was intended to be an "easy" programming language (oxymoron!). The reality is programming is never, and can never be "easy" for non-trivial programs.
I've found that the very features intended to make Basic easy, actually have the reverse effect! You need to be very careful about what you write, because the compiler makes many assumptions on your behalf.
"option type=explicit"
was added to give rudimentary protection against typos in variable names, but explicit typing doesn't imply anything about argument list checking. What might be of use here is another option, perhaps "arglists=strict" (or similar). However, the chances of that happening, given the support status of the product, are vanishingly small.
Unfortunately there are too many places where the Basic syntax for defining argument lists can't deal with all the possibilities, especially for routines in languages other than Basic. Thus, there has to be an escape mechanism to allow unchecked argument lists.
Basic was intended to be an "easy" programming language (oxymoron!). The reality is programming is never, and can never be "easy" for non-trivial programs.
I've found that the very features intended to make Basic easy, actually have the reverse effect! You need to be very careful about what you write, because the compiler makes many assumptions on your behalf.
A crucible of informative mistakes
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-22-2010 09:02 PM
тАО02-22-2010 09:02 PM
Re: Possible Alpha BASIC 1.6 compiler problem?
re: compiler versons,
I tested the one-argument version with Itanium 1.7, Alpha 1.7 and Vax 3.9 and got consistent results. I tested the two argument version with both 1,7 compilers and again got consistent results.
Jonathan
I tested the one-argument version with Itanium 1.7, Alpha 1.7 and Vax 3.9 and got consistent results. I tested the two argument version with both 1,7 compilers and again got consistent results.
Jonathan
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО02-23-2010 05:25 AM
тАО02-23-2010 05:25 AM
Re: Possible Alpha BASIC 1.6 compiler problem?
Same with me. While compiling with BASIC v1.6 Alpha, I get the correct behavior for testing paramater lists (param numbers as well as data types). But I do need to append a null list to functions with no expected parameters. (but as others have already suggested, this is probably the recommended technique)
- « Previous
-
- 1
- 2
- Next »
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2024 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP