argumentless Do

argumentless Do

Post by Denver Bra » Sun, 12 Dec 2004 02:50:07

To clarify about the syntax requirement:
If you omit the semicolon, the spaces
are not necessary either.

argumentless Do

Post by mtrc » Sun, 12 Dec 2004 03:57:50

Again it's coding style. Mine is to include the spaces after
argumentless DOs and that's why the semicolon is there.


argumentless Do

Post by Denver Bra » Sun, 12 Dec 2004 07:03:33

Again, I was clarifying.

(But interestingly not after argumentless QUITs.)
I was clarifying for the benefit of others
exactly what the syntax *requirement* is.

What you do for *style* is up to you.
My post for the benefit of others who didn't understand
the *requirements*.

Although you had made it plain that the semicolon was
just your style, you didn't say that adding the
trailing spaces was also just your style.

I was clarifying for the benefit of others that the
use of trailing spaces is *also* just your style.

Since others and myself had mentioned (or at least
inserted) the two spaces after the argumentless QUIT
that are required, I was making the distinction
between when the two spaces are or are not *required*.

Think about it from the perspective of a newbie.
You gave an example without the trailing spaces which
was correct syntactically but possibly not logically.
Then you gave an example that was more logical, but
syntactically wrong.
Then others and myself gave examples the were correct
logically and syntactically, but did not reflect a
change that you made in addition to changing the order
of commands.

Had your original example been:
F S node=$O(^ZZZYYY(node)) D Q:node="" ;
then just swapping the position of two argumentless
commands would have been more obvious.

It's tough to explain unambiguously, so sometimes
lengthy discussions like this can help.

So yes, the whole reason I posted my previous reply
was because what you had was just a matter of style.
You know it; I know it; most people people know it.
Most post was only for those who didn't fully
grasp it.

argumentless Do

Post by mattymump » Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:13:18

Thanks everyone. I think this has answered my questions.

argumentless Do

Post by bulgardrea » Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:14:29


Are you working as a MUMPS programmer?
You don't know elementary things about MUMPS.
How the heck did you get this job?

argumentless Do

Post by mattymump » Wed, 15 Dec 2004 05:41:15

I don't think you warrant a reply Mislitel. If we all knew everything
there was to know about Mumps then why is there a Mumps Group?! Or any
group for that matter. And why are you part of this group? to dish out
unhelpful comments like this?! If I could delete your pathetic entry
into this topic, I would.

argumentless Do

Post by rodd » Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:18:07

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,

Is that a requirement to post to comp.lang.mumps?

From previous postings its obvious that he's just starting out.

Has it been established that this is job related?

-- Rod --

argumentless Do

Post by mattymump » Thu, 16 Dec 2004 04:58:59


Thanks for your questions, Rod. They seem to help. Thank you. I will answer
them best I can even though I am thick and stupid and don't know anything about

Is that a requirement to post to comp.lang.mumps?
To be honest I'm not sure. I can't seem to find where the requirements are for
this group.

Has it been established that this is job related?
The question I had was only Job related in that it helps me write a small
program at work to help with my day-to-day support tasks.

Am I Mumps Programmer?
No, not at all. I support Mumps and applications but don't really do any
'hard-core' programming.

Now let me ask some questions :-
Why are we wasting time with this silly debate?

If my topic was so irrelavent to this group, then who is going to confront all
the other users that post junk in the is Mumps group, and I'm not talking about
all the genuine issues/problems that get talked about.

Why should I be picked on?


argumentless Do

Post by Denver Bra » Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:47:02

> Rod to Bulgardream:
The answer is no.
It was a rhetorical question.

>> Has it been established that this is job related?

Don't worry about it.

Don't worry about it.
(But now you can honestly say "a little bit".)

Rod and I just want to make sure you aren't scared away.

I didn't notice them lately. I killed the "Matt Parker" thread and put
mattparker* or whoever in my killfile.
Perhaps the spam filters prevent me from seeing them.

You may be overreacting.

Your writing does on rare occasions sound antsy or agitated.
If you could tone down the "This problem is just killing me and can anyone
at all please I beg you help me out of this mess" effect of your questions,
you might attract less unwanted attention.

Leave out any words like "Help" and all exclamation points that aren't
for vertical format control.

Keep in mind that the post that you took as a complaint did not give a real name.
Rod and I have real names because we are real persons.
Treat nameless authors as unpersons.
Therefore, their comments mean nothing.

If you have questions, just post them plainly, politely, and unapologetically.

Fair enough?

argumentless Do

Post by bulgardrea » Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:36:06


Thanks for your answers. Sorry for picking on you. You seem like a
genuinely nice guy and didn't deserve my comment.
I picked on you for these reasons:
1) I was amazed that you are trying to learn MSM (an obsolete
language). I have asked many "experts" and they all say: "MSM is dead.
We should all use Cache now."
2) I envy you that you are working in the UK, while I don't have the
legal right to do so (my country is not a member of the EU yet.)

You didn't post anything wrong. Have fun with MUMPS, it's a great
language. Or at least, it used to be, before Intersystems filled it up
with a zillion additional commands that are impossible to remember.

argumentless Do

Post by Jack » Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:20:28

Despite what marketing people tell you Cache' IS MUMPS - but plus a lot
MSM is not dead, it's just (virtually) unsupported.

May as well say BASIC is dead, we should all use VB. Same thing = a stupid

"Your criticism reveals an unsound technical background"

argumentless Do

Post by mattymump » Fri, 17 Dec 2004 05:57:25

To everyone

Although I can't say I agree with everyones comments, I have taken some
of it on board. I especially liked Denvers comments and the alternative
view-points. I could have taken on some negative comments I felt I
received. To Mislitel, all is forgiven, I appreciate you really - good
luck in getting that job!!

Bye for now.