Re: %TLOOKUP

[Hans Boldt <boldt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I understand what you're saying. It's just that we suspect that 
tables are relics of an older era, and that there's not much need to 
do much with them. Functionally, there's nothing that you can do 
with tables that you can't also do with arrays. And since arrays are 
so much more powerful anyways, why bother limiting yourself by using 
a table?

On the other hand, if there really is some overwhelmingly compelling 
reason that tables should be enhanced, I'm all ears!

Cheers! Hans

mlazarus@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hans,
>
>  Since keywords are now required in the D specs to define alternate tables,
> are there plans to relax this?  When we were only allowed 6 characters I
> didn't like it since it chewed up half of the allowable name.  Now I just
> don't like it since it interferes w/ my naming conventions and is
> superfluous.
>
>  -mark
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Hans Boldt boldt@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:39:00 -0400
> To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: %TLOOKUP
>
>
> Yes.
>
> mlazarus@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Hans,
> >
> > Is the TABxxxxx prefix still a requirement when specifying tables?