CHAIN3: Totally supercedes CHAIN?

[jcompton]

Is there any reason whatsoever anymore to use CHAIN instead of CHAIN3? If not... should CHAIN3 just become synonymous with CHAIN? Or is there a "compiler overheat" reason to still want to use CHAIN when conditions are not required?                    

[weimer]

Jason, you win the "shrink the compiler award" for the evening. Yes, CHAIN is completely supplanted by CHAIN3. I have removed CHAIN and made the chain keyword behave just like CHAIN3 behind your back.

The reason they were both there is that I have this legacy problem: I cannot make anything that used to parse fail to parse (or someone yells at me). I failed to notice that the chain3 syntax was already backwards compat.

Thanks for the heads-up.

                   

[jcompton]

The reason they were both there is that I have this legacy problem: I cannot make anything that used to parse fail to parse (or someone yells at me). I failed to notice that the chain3 syntax was already backwards compat.

Thanks for the heads-up.

                   Oh, I'm all in favor of not breaking old code, believe me. (Although we did get over APPEND-]APPENDI and CHAIN-]CHAIN2--after all, yours was the only released mod at the time--I'd rather not repeat if possible.)

Glad to be of service.