Search Results

Search found 5 results on 1 pages for 'rexx'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Is there a more modern regexp handler for Open Object Rexx

    - by Brent.Longborough
    The regular expression class (rxregexp.dll) that comes with ooRexx (I'm on 4.0.0) is relatively low on function compared, say, with Python's re module (even at 2.5.2). It appears to have no assertions, no facilities for group extraction, or for substitution. Greedy or lazy matching is a global pattern option, rather than flagged by an additional "?". Basically, a pre-PCRE regular expression engine. Does anyone know if anything with more up-to-date function is available?

    Read the article

  • Any certifications for Mainframe experience? Please suggest...

    - by Raja Reddy
    I'm having experience of 3years in Mainframe and working in India, for a reputed US Telecom MNC. I have expertise on COBOL, JCL, REXX and DB2. Can somebody suggest on doing some certifications. I know there are IBM standard DB2 certification, but do we have anything else? Your help is really appreciated. And also let me know if somebody from telecom industry are around..

    Read the article

  • Calling SharedPrefences on AppWidget

    - by Rexx
    Hello all, I would like to know if there is an issue with calling a sharedPeference value on an appWidget provider class so i can use it for an update. I have this code which i call on a method in the appWidget provider class, but it keeps giving me compilation error and that i should create a method for it. this is the code: prefs = getSharedPreference("myPrefs", Context.MODE_PRIVATE); is this a known issue and is there any other way i can pass the value from my configuration class, if this is not possible. Thank you

    Read the article

  • Changes in Language Punctuation [closed]

    - by Wes Miller
    More social curiosity than actual programming question... (I got shot for posting this on Stack Overflow. They sent me here. At least i hope here is where they meant.) Based on the few responses I got before the content police ran me off Stack Overflow, I should note that I am legally blind and neatness and consistency in programming are my best friends. A thousand years ago when I took my first programming class (Fortran 66) and a mere 500 years ago when I tokk my first C and C++ classes, there were some pretty standard punctuation practices across languages. I saw them in Basic (shudder), PL/1, PL/AS, Rexx even Pascal. Ok, APL2 is not part of this discussion. Each language has its own peculiar punctuation. Pascal's periods, Fortran's comma separated do loops, almost everybody else's semicolons. As I learned it, each language also has KEYWORDS (if, for, do, while, until, etc.) which are set off by whitespace (or the left margin) if, etc. Each language has function, subroutines of whatever they're called. Some built-in some user coded. They were set off by function_name( parameters );. As in sqrt( x ) or rand( y ); Lately, there seems to be a new set of punctuation rules. Especially in c++ where initializers get glued onto the end of variable declarations int x(0); or auto_ptr p(new gizmo); This usually, briefly fools me into thinking someone is declaring a function prototype or using a function as a integer. Then "if" and 'for' seems to have grown parens; if(true) for(;;), etc. Since when did keywords become functions. I realize some people think they ARE functions with iterators as parameters. But if "for" is a function, where did the arg separating commas go? And finally, functions seem to have shed their parens; sqrt (2) select (...) I know, I koow, loosening whitespace rules is good. Keep reading. Question: when did the old ways disappear and this new way come into vogue? Does anyone besides me find it irritating to read and that the information that the placement of punctuation used to convey is gone? I know full well that K&R put the { at the end of the "if" or "for" to save a byte here and there. Can't use that excuse here. Space as an excuse for loss of readability died as HDD space soared past 100 MiB. Your thoughts are solicited. If there is a good reason to do this, I'll gladly learn it and maybe in another 50 years I'll get used to it. Of course it's good that compilers recognize these (IMHO) typos and keep right on going, but just because you CAN code it that way doesn't mean you HAVE to, right?

    Read the article

  • Featureful commercial text editors?

    - by wrp
    I'm willing to buy tools if they add genuine value over a FOSS equivalent. One thing I wouldn't mind having is an editor with the power of Emacs, but made more user-friendly. There seem to be several commercial editors out there, but I can't find much discussion of them online. Maybe it's because the kind of people who use commercial software don't have time to do much blogging. ;-) If you have used any, what was your evaluation? I'd especially like to hear how you would compare them to Emacs. I'm thinking of editors like VEDIT, Boxer, Crisp, UltraEdit, SlickEdit, etc. To get things started, I tried EditPad Pro because I needed something on a Win98SE box. I was attracted by its powerful support for regexps, but I didn't use it for long. One annoyance was that find-in-files was only available in a separate product you had to buy. The main problem, though, was stability. It sometimes hung and I lost a few files because it corrupted them while editing. After a couple weeks, I found that I was avoiding using it, so I just uninstalled. Edit: Ah...I need to remove some ambiguity. With reference to Emacs, "power" often means its potential for customization. This malleability comes from having an architecture in which most of the functionality is written in a scripting language that runs on a compiled core. Emacs (with elisp) is by far the most widely known such system among home users, but there have been other heavily used editors such as Freemacs (MINT), JED (S-Lang), XEDIT (Rexx), ADAM (TPU), and SlickEdit (Slick-C). In this case, by "power" I'm not referring to extensibility but to realized features. There are three main areas which I think a commercial text editor might be an improvement over Emacs: Stability The only apps I regularly use on Linux that give me flaky behavior are Emacs, Gedit, and Geany. On Windows, I like the look and features of Notepad++, but I find it extremely unstable, especially if I try to use the plugins. Whatever I happen to be doing, I'm using some text editor practically all day long. If I could switch to an editor that never gave me problems, it would definitely lower my stress level. Tools When I started using Emacs, I searched the manual cover to cover to gleam ideas for clever, useful things I could do with it. I'd like to see lots of useful features for editing code, based on detailed knowledge of what the system can do and the accumulated feedback of users. Polish The rule of threes goes that if you develop something for yourself, it's three times harder to make it usable in-house, and three times harder again to make it a viable product for sale. It's understandable, but free software development doesn't seem to benefit from much usability testing. BTW, texteditors.org is a fantastic resource for researching text editors.

    Read the article

1