Maybe it is just me.
When I see,
Read myFile
Dow not %eof()
My mind immediately knows that you are trying to loop thru myFile (Which
translates to clearer for me).
When I see
Read myFile
Dow not %eof(myFile)
Somehow mind auto go to the double check mode and double check the
typing to make sure the file name in %eof is that same as the prior read
statement. Then and after then, I knows that you are trying to loop
thru myFile.
After all, code below are valid as long as MyFile2 is declared in F spec
Read myFile
Dow not %eof(myFile2)
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Pluta
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 2:58 PM
To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: Standards question: What is your feeling about
%found&%eofvs.%found(file) & %eof(file) ?
Lim Hock-Chai wrote:
Uuumm. I guess this is depending on the eye of beholder. I think
without qualify is clearer.
I hate to argue this point, but the qualified BIF is absolutely clearer
because it doesn't require me to read another line of code to figure out
what it does. It's sort of a slam dunk. Any other argument is based on
making life easier for the original programmer.
Is it redundant? Does it require more typing? Yes and yes. But is it
clearer? Also yes.
And since the mantra of today's programming is making it easier for the
next guy, or making it more readable by non-RPG programmers, I can't
even believe we're debating this. The qualified version is better.
Peace out.
Joe
--
This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing
list To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.
midrange.com
