IBM Z Software


This portal is to open public enhancement requests against IBM Z Software products. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).


Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas

  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.


Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.

ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

Add a new idea Subscribe
Status Not under consideration
Workspace PL/I Compilers
Created by Guest
Created on Jun 8, 2016

RELATED IDEAS

Additional compound operators for reverse operations

Enterprise PL/I at some stage introduced the originating from C compound operators, i.e.

+=
-=
*=
/=

and quite justifiably added

**=
||=

All of them, lets generically use the term ?=, in essence "expand"

x ?= y ;

into

x = x ? y;

It might in some circumstances be advantageous to have three additional compound cut operators,

=-
=/
=||

that reverse the order of the operands, i.e. using the generic "=?" notation from above:

x =?y;

would "expand" to

x = y ? x;

and this obviously explains why such operators are not required (but could be added for completeness sake) for '+' and '*', and the proposer does not really see a case for a **= operator, although there might be one.

Idea priority Low
  • Guest
    Reply
    |     Jun 28, 2016

    this would add complexity (and easily misread statements) to the language for little benefit

By clicking the "Post Comment" or "Submit Idea" button, you are agreeing to the IBM Ideas Portal Terms of Use.
Do not place IBM confidential, company confidential, or personal information into any field.