Re: Meaningful Procedure names

[boldt@xxxxxxxxxx]

Joe wrote:
>I get the impression that you do not consider the long name
>capability either neccessary or desirable. I agree that long
>names for the sake of long names is unproductive and can
>make code harder to read, rather than easier. On the other
>hand, there are times that restricting your name to 6, 10 or
>12 charcters does the same. I rarely go over 12, but there
>are rare occasions when I use 15-20 charaters because it
>causes the code to be easier to understand.

Do I really need to add a smiley every time I try to
have a little fun?

I agree with you about useful length of names.  The
longer you make a name, the more descriptive it is, but
too long makes it inconvenient to use.  I agree that
15-20 is probably a good upper limit on name length.

The 4096 char limit on the size of long names is a bit
of a joke since it was driven by a requirement that we
knew at the time was a bit flakey.  (I'll defer from
discussing other (ahem) issues regarding the function.)

Cheers!  Hans

Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.com


+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---