On Jun 23, 8:43*pm, Martin Phillips <MartinPhill... (AT) ladybridge (DOT) com>
wrote:
Actually NO! Personally I don't like the idea, and I don't see this as
fixing a "problem" or adding a useful feature, but rather a knee jerk
reaction that hasn't been fully thought through.

What happens when someone takes advantage of this new "feature" and
accidentally passes a data stack across that they weren't aware of.

Perhaps a "better" implementation would be to "steal" the concept of
the "Z" (aka phantom) command, where stacked data can be passed down
as a value seperated list on the command line --> people can then make
a deliberate decision as to what data is passed down, and it is easily
"visible" in the program --> with your DATA keyword, data could have
been stacked up 3 programs ago

To: JJCSR
JJCSR wrote:
Jim, what problems have you found? I print orders and other documents all day
long using rule modules - it's as simple as calling sp-assign from within
the subroutine.

tnx.

g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.91
The Retro Archive - telnet://bbs.retroarchive.org

On 23 June, 23:24, Ross Ferris <ro... (AT) stamina (DOT) com.au> wrote:
The change does not simply pass the data queue regardless and hence
risk changing the behaviour of existing applications. It requires an
option to the PHANTOM command to explicitly say that this action is
required. It does also seem to be consistent with the way in which
other commands can use DATA in a paragraph.


Martin Phillips, Ladybridge Systems

What's all this I hear about
Communicating with Phantoms?

Why don't you just hold a
seance? Or use an Ouija board?

--
frosty