Re: NR (no ruler)

[Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx]

Carl wrote:
Except by roundabout means. A SUbroutine *can* be manufactured by
concatenation using a *different* S/G from the S/G holding the SUb
itself -- which, of course, defeats the purpose of avoiding the use
of two S/Gs where one will do. Still, it's possible; here's an
illustration: 

Yes, I see that, thanks.
Much simpler, though, to write
>+"Q2 ">;*;
and be done with it.
So, just to see if I have this straight: you can avoid a subroutine by
putting executable code into a S/G and then "putting" it as often as you
like (if you don't change the contents of the S/G, of course). And if
there's no concatenation required, one would use  instead of
?



Harry Binswanger
hb@xxxxxxxx