Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm!rohvm1!madif
From: MADIF@ROHVM1.BITNET (Jim Foster)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx
Subject: Re: exposing a stem passed as a arguement
Message-ID: <90306.083443MADIF@ROHVM1.BITNET>
Date: 2 Nov 90 13:34:43 GMT
References: <1990Oct31.173237.895@wrkgrp.uucp>
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company
Lines: 25

In article <1990Oct31.173237.895@wrkgrp.uucp>, ets@wrkgrp.uucp (Edward T Spire)
says:
>
>The VM/CMS implementation seems to support a syntax which doesn't
>look legal with respect to Cowlishaw's definition of the language:
>
>name: arg stem .
>      interpret 'procedure expose' stem'.'
>
>Cowlishaw specifies that "(the procedure instruction) must be the
>first instruction executed after the call or function invocation",
>so how can that arg instruction sit between the procedure name and
>the interpreted procedure instruction?
>
It depends on the level of REXX implemented.  IBM CMS 5.6 implements
REXX v3.4.  Cowlishaw book (1st Edition) describes 3.5.  IBM OS/2
1.2 EE implements 4.0.  Quoting from the System Product Interpreter
Reference for VM/XA SP 1 and 2 (SC23-0374) page 46:

    "It is suggested that the PROCEDURE instruction should be the
     first instruction executed after the CALL or function invocation
     - that is, it should be the first instruction following the label.
     This is not enforced."

I think the REXX Compiler does enforce this.