Re: An odd thing

Walden Leverich wrote:

> <snip>



> . My vote: Kill the cycle and use do loops.
>
> </Hypocrite mode on> Having said that, many of my one-off programs use the
> cycle. </off>
>

IMHO, if you know a technique, use it.  I can't condone "dumbing down" a program
for those who are still learning RPG.

Just imagine what would happen to the English, or any other, spoken language if
we reduced it to "entry" level.  See program run. Run program, run.  ;-)

Personally, my time is better spent teaching someone the cycle (and expecting
them to learn it)  than writing the extra code required in a gazillion programs
to avoid it.  It's still a viable choice for any batch process, especially if
level breaks are needed or the ever unpopular matching record, which we use 
where
appropriate. (shudder shudder).

And yes, you can structure a cycle program.  We like to use subroutines for each
detail and total level break along with a subroutine for each matching record
input.  (ie: DETL2, DETL1, R01MR, R01NMR, R02MR, TOTL1 TOTL2 is the entire
mainline).  BTW, doesn't the compiler optimize around subroutine boundries?

Just another 2 cents.

+---
| 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 MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---