Re: CHAIN versus SETLL

Kahn, David wrote:

> And I would code the following horror story only at gun point.
> 
>      KEY  SETLLF1234
>      *IN90     DOUEQ*ON
>      KEY  READEF1234                 90
>      *IN90     IFEQ *OFF
>      <.... whatever process ....>
>           ENDIF
>           ENDDO
> 
> But that's another debate completely.  :-)

EEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate it when I see that!

The unnecessary double nesting reminds me of something that happened to
me a couple of weeks ago.

I wrote (actually, I HEAVILY modified someone elses) "add nest" program
that puts the nesting level in the left 2 char of an rpg line.

It only showed 1 digit for the level (B1... B2... X2... E2... E1) - I
never did  like seeing B001 etc..   If the nesting level went above 9,
it just rolled over to 0 and then 1 again.  

When people asked me what would happen if they nested past 9, I'd just
tell them that it would blow up and if they went above 9, that they
should start over and try to organize thier code a little better. (I
stopped just short of calling them sick indivuals with a masochistic
(sp?) streak).

Last week someone got ahold of my program and increased it to 2 digits. 
The nerve!!!  They said it was to help debug some legacy code, but I
know better!!!

rick
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the Midrange System Mailing List!  To submit a new message,   *
* send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe from     *
* this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify            *
* 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.  Questions      *
* should be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *