Re: DOW vs DOU

[PaulMmn <PaulMmn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If you scan for *INxx and don't find it, you'll know enough to scan for just
the 'xx'.  There are enough 'old code' programs around that you have to be
careful!

If the scan doesn't find it, a quick compile in your test environment will
give you a compile listing with a complete list of 'where used.'

Back before we had *INxx and all those 'newfangled' op codes, I was quite
fond of coding:

        N01             GOTO NOT1

                        ...assorted code that relies on 01 being *ON

                 NOT1   TAG

instead of coding:

         01             ....code...
         01             ....code...
         01             ....code...
         01             ....code...


I refer to it as an 'in line' subroutine; we had an S/360/20/5 and we -had-
to minimize indicators on the left to save space for 'real' program code!
Made for very 'efficient' code; reduced 'left indicators' before we 'had' to!


--Paul E Musselman
PaulMmn@ix.netcom.com



At 02:06 PM 5/25/97 EDT, John wrote:
>Booth 
>
>Thats not the reason why I wouldn't use left hand indicators,   The real reason
>is in  a real production shop where your jumping into a source member to find a
>problem and you scan for *IN9 to find all the 90's (*IN90 - *IN99) and you
>won't.    I'd cut off the hands of programmers (just kidding,... kinda) who use
>the SETON or SETOFF instead of MOVE *ON, *OFF for that reason.  Left hand
>indicators. are the same problem( how many 5,0 fields did you find in RPGIII
>while looking for *IN50?).   I have gone as far as to do conditions (*INxx
IFEQ
>*OFF) followed directly by an ENDIF  after a chain, etc.  just so the NEXT
>programmer will find the indicator while scanning.
>
>John P. Carr 
>EdgeTech  
>
>
>Booth wrote;
>>Because using conditioning indicators on the left isn't politically correct
>>these days, so it's 'chic' to code three lines of code where one would do.
>>It's all part of a secret plot to make RPG more 'wordy' - I believe the
>>ringleaders are closet COBOL programmers !    ;-)
>
>>> boothm@earth.goddard.edu wrote:
>>> Why does:
>>>        90            LEAVE
>>> lack full clarity?
>
>>> 
>>>> John Carr <74711.77@CompuServe.COM> said:
>>>> 
>>>> #     *IN90     IFEQ *ON
>>>> #                    LEAVE
>>>> #                    ENDIF

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *