RE: Strange behavior w/%editc()

> From: McCallion, Martin
>
> To quote McConnell (_Code Complete_): "explicit is better than
> implicit".

Honestly, I rarely consult McConnell to determine my coding practices.


> In the former statement it's very clear that the intent is
> to modify a substring of the lotnumber; in the latter it is not.

On the other hand, to a good RPG programmer, the intent is perfectly clear.
Go figure.


>       eval %subst( lotnumber :
>                      ( %len( lotnumber ) - %len( lotseq ) ) + 1 :
>                      %len( lotseq ) ) =
>              %editc( lotseq : 'X' )
>
> That doesn't look too great in a proportional font, but in fixed-width
> it should be fine.

And this is where I have to see that you and I view the issue from
completely different viewpoints.  To replace MOVE LOTSEQ LOTNUMBER with the
code above is so intuitively bad to me that I doubt you and I can rationally
continue a discussion.  This is a case where PC (Programming Correctness) is
taken to an absurd conclusion.

This is my opinion, but I believe that a large majority of day-to-day
programmers would agree with me.

Joe