Re: Named indicators (was DOW vs DOU)

[CVWD@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 97-05-27 19:48:53 EDT, you write:

>  We do not permit an indicator to be referenced beyond the line of sight in
which 
>  the indicator is set on or off.

>  Of course this technique requires you to use primed read loops.

Hmmmm.  One of the reasons I prefer:

setll
dou    30
reade         30
if   not 30
process
endif
enddo

is just what you said.  The indicator is referenced near where it is set.
 Unlike

setll       
reade   30
dow   not 30
process
reade 30
enddo

where the second read might be 10 pages away.

The other reasons I prefer it are: only one read, proper ITER behavior, and
it conforms to the way all other result indicator handling is done (ie an IF
immediately after the indicator is set).

On another subject - I don't usually find it much more maintainable when
programmers move result indicators to fields and then use the fields.  As far
as I am concerned, it's just another variable to deal with and track,
additional complexity without additional functionality.  When we are allowed
to use named indicators, when a chain to the master sets
No_Master_Record_Found_For_This_Account_Number or Master_File_I/O_Error
 directly, THEN I will get excited about using them.

Just my $.02 - Lance
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *