RE: Displaying functional value in debug(and why I like type N variables)

[Joel Fritz <JFritz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

One difference between type N variables and indicators is that the rules for
naming variables allow you to have a few more type N variables in a given
program than you can have indicators.  If you allow meaningless combinations
of symbols, the number is pretty darned big even if you exclude all
variations of "INxx".  The logical operators let you use them in a
convenient way that you can't match with one character flags.  Besides, the
original context was how to work around the debugger's inability to show the
return value of functions.  If you're using an indicator to show eof, how
many lines of code away from the read statement can you trust its value?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: jpcarr@TREDEGAR.COM [mailto:jpcarr@TREDEGAR.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 12:34 PM
> To: RPG400-L@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: Displaying functional value in debug
> 
> 
> 
> Buck said;
> >>I would define fileAtEOF as an indicator (N),
> >>so that later code could use it in the form
> >>[if fileAtEOF] without the cumbersome [= 'Y'].
> 
> >I agree with you completely.  I alluded to that with the 
> wisecrack about
> >indicators.  The example code was cut from an early program, pre-"N"
> field.
> 
> I've refrained from this thread till now.  I just couldn't help myself
> anylonger.
> 
> 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
> 
> John Carr
> 
> 
+---
| 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
+---