Will there ever be "user defined data types"?

, ,
1

Hello everyone!

I am working with Natural for quite a long time and I get used to it.

What I really miss with Natural is a concept of user defined data types.
A concept which is similar to typedefs in “C” or the LIKE in PL/1.

The real world example is: make a copy of a PDA.

I have to define the original PDA and in order to save it during runtime
I have to define an identical LDA (or PDA). I have to invoke both and
then I can do a move by name.

If the original PDA changes, I have to remember that there is a copy
which must be changed as well.

To be honest: There are only four such copies in my universe, but I always get mad about it.

So the question is: Is there any hope that sometimes Natural will offer
a concept of user defined data types?

Any hope is welcomed.
Christian

2

Especially if there are many fields in the PDA (LDA) you should not be doing a MOVE BY NAME. REDEFINE the entire PDA as a single alpha field and MOVE just one field to another field. This saves resources when transferring control from one object to another, and when “save’ing” the PDA or LDA.

steve

3

Hi Steve.

Thy for the hint. But it doesn’t answer my initial posting.

Regards, Christian

4

This also does not answer your question, but you can treat a PDA just like an LDA. Why do a move at all? You can WRITE WORK 1 #MYPDA
and/or DEFINE DATA LOCAL USING MYPDA

I do find a problem in reverse though: because one cannot define a View within a PDA, one cannot pass a View without creating a PDA copy of the View’s LDA.