Re: Displaying functional value in debug

John Carr wrote:

>So,  Named variables of the 'Type - N" 
>persuasion are ok to have as your own EOF flag.
>I suppose a good "Named Variable"  Naming 
>convention would be good also, Unless your 
>naming convention used numbers like  IN30, 
>IN31,IN32, etc
>
><SEG>
>RDLMAO

<Big Grin>  That's why I put the silly smiley in the original note ("can you
say indicator?")
More seriously though, numbered indicators have problems: 1) cryptic "names"
and 2) they're global in scope.
I can use custEOF locally in a procedure and never worry about side effects.
It's also reasonably clear what the intent of the field is.  I made a very
good living using indicators and understand where you're coming from.  Using
indicators _well_  (set the ind on line 100, test the ind on line 101) was
never a problem.  It was the indiscriminate use of the same indicator on
hundreds of lines that was the Bad Thing.

Buck Calabro
Aptis; Albany, NY
"We are what we repeatedly do.
 Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." --Aristotle


Billing Concepts Corp., a NASDAQ Listed Company, Symbol: BILL
+---
| 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
+---