Fri Jan 24 15:37:16 EST 2014
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 14:25 +0900, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> Van Snyder wrote:
> >I don't understand why the <selector> being a procedure pointer is a
> >problem, i.e., why was the answer to question (2)(a) in F03/0139
> Allowing it to be a procedure would certainly be a new feature. I
> just don't see the attraction or the usefulness in such a
The reason for wanting it is the same as the reason for wanting the
ASSOCIATE construct in the first place: to provide abbreviated names.
We modeled the ASSOCIATE construct on argument association, wherein a
procedure pointer is a perfectly good actual argument.
I agree that 184.108.40.206 would need surgery. C805 would need to be moved to
8.1.9 to apply to R838 in the SELECT TYPE construct.
I agree it's enough work to call it a new feature.
More information about the J3