Re: Is this the Free-Format that we asked for?

At 11/1/00 03:00 PM -0700, you wrote:
>/free
>
>     Read(n) MASTER;
>     If (not %EOF);
>       /copy something
>          For i = 0 to num;
>               x = y(i);
>          EndFor;
>     EndIf;
>
>  /endfree;
>
>There is no shortage of free-format languages that have managed to do the
>job without requiring the programmer to type an explicit end of statement
>character. Why does RPG need one? Think about this folks. EVERY SINGLE LINE
>of code needs the new terminator. How many extra keystrokes will that amount
>to in a given day of coding? And what is it gaining you? NOTHING!

  The only possible "advantage" (in quotes because I see it as enabling 
difficult to read code, in most cases) that I can see is that it would 
allow multiple statements on the same line.  Otherwise, it's just extra 
baggage and s/b eliminated.  My personal opinion is that it shouldn't be 
there.  If the design spec says that it *must* allow multiple statements on 
one line, then ALLOW its use as a delimiter between statements.  Forcing it 
as a requirement seems silly to me.

>One other point that should be brought to your attention is the elimination
>of the GOTO statement from the free-format specifications.

  While GOTO is almost obsolete, there are times when it's the most 
expeditious opcode to use, i.e. when maintaining some older, monolithic 
piece of code and you need to add a condition that says "we're outta 
here".  I see no reason a tag can't be added, similar to DOS's :TAG 
structure.  (CL's TAG: structure would probably be problematic, since the 
":" is already used as a procedure parm delimiter.)

  -mark

+---
| 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
+---