-----Original Message-----
From: Richard E Maine <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, 18 October 2005 1:06
>On Oct 17, 2005, at 1:07 AM, O'Brien Paddy wrote:
>
>> The repeat factor which is available in DATA statements is not
>> available in array constructors...
>> Is there a particular reason that the repeat factor has been excluded?
>
>The syntax of DATA statements is generally quite quirky. It is
>completely different from the syntax of anything else and, in general,
>doesn't work out well in other contexts. That is one reason that I
>generally avoid DATA statements, but on occasion there are things that
>just turn out to be difficult to do any other way.
>
>The repeat factor is one cause of some of the oddities in DATA
>statement syntax. Consider something like
>
> 6*7
>
>In any context other than a DATA statement, that means 6 times 7. The
>DATA statement does not allow arithmetic, even the most trivial cases
>like that. Pretty much every other context does allow arithmetic and
>thus, repeat factors wouldn't work. Certainly 6*7 is a perfectly valid
>value for an array constructor element, for example. One could perhaps
>start defining a lot of special-case rules for when 6*7 meant
>multiplication and when it meant repeats, but that would get very
>complicated very fast - I can't imagine that being a good road to go
>down.
(6)7
might work well as a repeat factor that avoids the use of *.
|