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

["John Taylor" <john.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Jon Paris

> You want GOTO just use the fixed format as before - you want modern
> constructs then avoid GOTO - no one is taking anything away.

Please.... we're talking about a language that is now almost state of the
art for compiler design in the 1970's. Don't talk to me about modern
language features. I've been wanting for much too long already.

GOTO is a victim of it's own success. It's a very flexible branching
statement, and was the only way to get things done before the introduction
of structured constructs like DOxx etc. Admittedly, even today I run across
code that looks like this:


            BEGLP1   TAG
                             READ    FILEA                     99
 N99      VAR1     COMP   VAR2                 9999
 N99                     EXSR    DOSTUFF
 N99                    GOTO   BEGLP1


But the only reason that I run across it is because it's usually existing
(very old) code that has been recompiled under RPG III to run native. Once
in a blue moon, I run across an old timer that has written a new RPG III
program in the same way. Guess what though? That old timer has absolutely
zero interest in RPG IV, or free format. It's not like you're going to see
him start cranking out stuff like:

/FREE;

BEGLP1:

            READ(N)   MASTER;
            IF (NOT %EOF )  AND (VAR1 = VAR2);
                    DOSTUFF();
            ENDIF;
            GOTO   BEGLP1;

/ENDFREE;


Yet this is what the whole (irrational) GOTO fear is about. Why do you
presume that we will always use GOTO in the worst possible way?


Regards,

John Taylor
Canada







+---
| 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
+---