× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Allow me to vote for this one too. Of course with
variations. It has actually helped me "keep the loop-logic
in one place" because of all the "iter" cases you want to do
sometimes, and the breaking logic that somebody else
referred to.

Of course some of those convoluted reports really cry out
for primary/secondary looping. Hah! Mr RPG did "Group by"
[MR] long before SQL was even a glint in its father's
eye...<g>

- Alan


----- Original Message -----
From: "G Armour" <garmour400m@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion"
<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: Two reade loops: which one preferred ?


| Thank goodness for the voice of reason!  <g>
|
| Though I wonder, Henrik, why would this cost a few more
cycles?  I can't
| see logically how one could eat more cycles doing it this
way.  But, of
| course, this is not a paramount consideration.
|
| GA
|
| --- Henrik Krebs <hkrebs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > A reason why style #1 might be preferred is that 'Do
forever' is
| > misinformational unless you have a veeery large file.
| >
| > But I actually use style #3:
| > ----- Style
#3 -------------------------------------------
| >
| > mykey setll record
| > dou %eof
| > mykey reade record
| > if not %eof
| > ... process ...
| > endif
| > enddo
| >
| > because I think it's cleaner.
| > Why?
| > 1. First of all: Read can return either a) a record or
b) an eof flag,
| > and we (you) only want 'process' in case 'record'
| >    You could also inside the loop have coded for both
situations (select
| > or if..else)
| > 2. It's clean: only a single 'read' to control a
'read-loop'.  Both
| > style #1 and #2 has two or three different routes
through the code: zero
| > records, a record read and no more records
| > 3. No 'Do forever' that definately is not 'forever'
| > 4. Same construction (the fewer the better) for 'read
entire file'
| > (except the missing setll of cause).
| >
| > It might mean a few more cykles, but they are cheaper
than programmer
| > time
| >
| > Henrik
|
|
|
| __________________________________
| Do you Yahoo!?
| Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
| http://companion.yahoo.com/
| _______________________________________________
| This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
(MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
| To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
| visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
| or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| Before posting, please take a moment to review the
archives
| at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
|


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.