RE: CL improvements

[Joel Fritz <JFritz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Find myself in agreement. <g> 

Lots of CL programs that began life as simple menus have become horrible
monstrosities as generations of programmers added branching to them.  I'd
like to see at least a while loop.

Anyone out there experimented with CL procedure calls?  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Langston [mailto:jlangston@conexfreight.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 1999 10:37 AM
> To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: CL improvements
> 
> 
> Actually, I have been wanting subroutines and for loops in CL 
> for a long
> long time.  You can emulate subroutines by either using 
> another CL program
> and calling that, but I've never liked that concept.
> 
> And for loops are great when you want to do something more than once
> dependent on whatever criteria you want.
> 
> JCLs always seem to be lacking though.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jim Langston
> 
> Tim McCarthy wrote:
> 
> > Forgive me for being a killjoy here, but do we REALLY NEED 
> these sort of
> > enhancements in CL? Subroutines? FOR loops? I'd much rather 
> IBM focused
> > its' efforts elsewhere.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> +---
> | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@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
> +---
> 
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@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
+---