RE: Contiguous memory and the *INKx indicators

[Scott Klement <klemscot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joe,

     Basing each key might be more lines of code -- but then again it
might be less.   The way you're doing it, you need to do a new set of
MOVEs each time the screen is used.   With based keys, you only have to
do it once at the beginning.

Furthermore, what happens if the program changes a function key?  It's
possible to do a "SETOFF" or "SETON" of *INKx keys.   With the move
method, you'd have to move all of the compatible keys TO the *INKC before
displaying the screen, and move them back AFTER displaying the screen.
This would not be necessary using pointers.

I agree that if the indicators are always contiguous that basing them as a
group is nicer -- but personally, I wouldn't trust that method unless it's
documented by IBM to always be contiguous...

Just trying to give you some possibilities to think about...


On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Joe Pluta wrote:
>
> In RPG400, I do 24 moves to set the command key indicators.  I wanted to
> reduce the lines of code, and the based array does that quite nicely.
> Basing each indicator individually would actually require MORE lines of
> code, because I'd have to do not only the 24 moves, but also the 24 field
> definitions and the 24 pointer definitions.  If it turns out that the *INKx
> fields aren't contiguous anymore, I'll simply revert to the RPG400 method of
> 24 moves.
>