You can't do that

[Brian K. White]

>> Functions and arguments would be nice.  I would like
>> to pass arguments to a particular call (or chain) and
>> have it return a value.
>
> Now hold on... am I missing something. This is pretty much *excactly* what 
> I
> use CALL tables for in the first place. What do you mean???

functions would be great.
functions with arguments would be GREAAAT.

call tables and gosubs that require keeping track of variables are not as 
handy as being able to write your own doohicky() command and just use it 
like another command in your code.

And I'm not even a c or perl or java coder. Shells have this ability and I 
use it a lot there.

But I'm with Jeff also in how big of a deal it is. It's just a "would be 
nice". Call tables and gosubs, and to some extent even mere labeled tests 
are almost as good, good enough anyway to allow one to do pretty much 
whatever you want as you of course know better than most.

Brian K. White  --  brian at aljex.com  --  http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro  BBx    Linux  SCO  FreeBSD    #callahans  Satriani  Filk!