[Info-vax] Very simple DCL question

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 1/1/2023 4:31 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 1/1/23 13:02, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/1/2023 12:54 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>> On 2023-01-01 17:25:08 +0000, Arne Vajhj said:
>>>> On 1/1/2023 12:02 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>>>> Somebody (and I'm pretty sure I know who it was) did fix the @ 
>>>>> documentation in the DCL Dictionary, not that most folks will know 
>>>>> or will remember that @ is documented there. 
>>>>> https://docs.vmssoftware.com/vsi-openvms-dcl-dictionary-a-m/
>>>>
>>>> Yes. And it points to DCL_CTLFLAGS bit 3.
>>>
>>> P9 to P16 should have been enabled by default, and disabled with 
>>> DCL_CTLFLAGS when or if that was needed.
>>>
>>> Make the defaults better over time. Not worse.
>>>
>>> Compatibility inevitably extracts its costs in complexity and 
>>> confusion and effort.
>>>
>>> Look around. This DCL feature has been available for over a dozen 
>>> years. And few here even knew of its existence. That's a problem.
>>
>> On the other hand then breaking compatibility also requires
>> a justification.
> 
> How would adding the ability to have 8 addition parameters break
> anything?

In practice it probably won't bother the vast majority.

But at least in theory the symbols P9..P16 could be
used for something else.

Like a foreign command.

There is a lot of weird stuff out there.

https://xkcd.com/1172/

>> Who needs more than 8 parameters?  Obviously someone
>> did since the feature was added, but it does not seem
>> like something many wants.
> 
> Then don't use it.  But allowing 16 won't break any code that only
> uses 8 and it gives a capability someone might need or want.

See above.

Arne