RE: Indicator enhancements (was Bale, Dan)

[Joel Fritz <JFritz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's a matter of taste to me, but...

The main advantage to using defined constants that I can see is saving a bit
of storage and making the comparisons a little bit more efficient.  If you
use one byte values for your constants, the economy is there.  It's not
exactly a big deal with today's hardware.  If you have a standard set of
constants in your program skeleton or a copy member, it can save you some
typing.  

Also seems to me that if the constants are used as flags, the names should
tell you everything you need to know about them to use them, and you won't
need to refer to the D-specs except to satisfy your curiosity.     

Again, I think it's a matter of taste; I'm just the ultimate arbiter. <vbg>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bale, Dan [mailto:DBale@TFSA.Textron.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 12:02 PM
> To: 'RPG400-L@midrange.com'
> Subject: RE: Indicator enhancements (was Bale, Dan)
> 
> 
> Me, I'd just junk the defined constants and use literals in 
> the expression.
> That way I don't have to bother looking up the D-specs to see how the
> constants are defined.
> 
+---
| 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
+---