RE: Defining a function key...

["Richard B Baird" <rbaird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What I really can't understand is the comment that *inkx is obscure.

Kx indicators have been a solid and reliable part of IBM operating systems
(3, 32, 34, 36, 38, 400) for oh, say, 40 years now?  Obscure?  if you say
so....

On the other hand, since there are almost as many ways of implementing the
aid byte technique as there are programmers, plus all the extra code
needed(sometimes obscured by /copy), I see more potential for confusion
there.

Answer me these questions:

If you took each method and removed all comments leaving nothing but the
code, compare the number of programmers who would immediately know what the
aid byte technique was doing, but would be completely mystified by the
*inkx method, with those who would have to research the aid byte method to
find out what it meant but would know intuitively what *inkx meant.

I believe more would be in the latter category.

Now, add the comments back to both programs.  all obscurity goes away for
both methods.  Now the aid byte becomes simply a 'neat trick'.

JMHO,

rick

---original message----
Hi,

I don't understand the comments about the AID byte in the mail
below...EASILY versus GREAT DEAL more complicated ?

Anyway, I guess the basic goal for programming should be the creation of
readable programs to improve maintenance.  In that context I don't see why
people vote for obscure things like *INKG ?

I doubt anybody can argue that it is easier than a test like

     If #Key = #F7

While all the necessary pre-requisites for this can be stored in a
copymember, I don't see the point why this should be a GREAT DEAL more
complicated ?

Hopefully the end result is always the same, but this is no reason to
create
obscure coding styles (after so many years, I at least, still need to count
on my keyboard before I know which function key was targeted).

Kind regards,
Paul