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:firstname.lastname@example.org] > 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: > email@example.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: firstname.lastname@example.org +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.