Re: How do you sequence/order your subroutines/subprocedures?

Kurt,

Layout in the source doesn't change anything at runtime.

I like to keep my internal (non-exported) procedures at the bottom (and I
typically name them with an 'i_' prefix, e.g. i_setFlags). That way, at
least someone who is going over my source won't have to page through a bunch
of internal stuff which has (hopefully) been tested to death and therefore
isn't the cause of the bug they're trying to fix. Likewise, if any of the
prototypes are defined in the module code (again, for internal procedures
only), those will be in the same order as the procedures themselves.

If I know that my module will eventually become a single-module *SRVPGM,
I'll put them in the same order as they are exported from the service
program, but again, that's simply a matter of convenience. If I need to add
any procedures, they can at least go after all the others, since they will
go at the end of the *SRVPGM export list.

Rory
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Kurt Anderson <kurt.anderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

wrote:

Hi all,

I'm just curious how people lay out their subroutines and subprocedures
in a program, and why?

I've always done it (subprocedures, I don't do much with subroutines)
alphabetically - mainly because the outline will not alphabetize them -
and they're a pain to find otherwise. I believe the outline does
alphabetize subroutines (for whatever reason).

Location of a subprocedure/subroutine in a program doesn't affect how it
runs, right?

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Kurt Anderson