Re: "If %scan(x:y)" is not valid???

I tend to agree with Dan.

one or two line procedures are no better than one or two line subroutines.
They obsure the code, rather than illuminating it.

Coupled with the fact that procedures are subject to change as well, if
you're testing something and it isn't working the way you think it should,
using Jon's logic, the procedure would be the last place you'd look, when
in fact, it just might be the source of the error.  having that line or two
of code in-line rather than obscured (no matter how many different places
it might be executed from), removes all doubt, without having to go looking
for the procedure.

Now, if you are truely doing a function that takes more than say, 3 or 4
lines of code (or less, if it needs an associated work variable or two),
AND you expect to be able to reuse it elsewhere, by all means - write a
procedure!

otherwise, show me the code - don't hide it.

Rick

-----original message-----
I know I invite trouble when sparring with one of the masters, but... <g>

--- Jon Paris <Jon.Paris@Partner400.com> wrote:
>  >> As for your suggestion that it would be more appropriate to use
%check,
> I dunno.
>
> Well you are performing a check on the value so it seemed appropriate -
you
> aren't scanning.  I look at it from the maintenance perspective - if
another
> programmer sees %Check( ValidTypeCodes: TransType ) it just "spells it
out"
> better for me.

Well, I'm not sure, but I think I