RE: Setting off multiple indicators

I agree with everyone about block seton, setoff - don't do it.

However, I am going to commit heresy and say that I am not
in favor of using smoke, mirrors, misdirection, obscure pointer
tricks, or any of the other 'cool' indicator tricks people advocate
for displays - and here is why:  In the DDS for the screen,
the programmer has to use indicators by number.  When you
are looking at the code trying to debug it, you see that IN30
does this and IN52 does this and IN03 means they pressed
F3 and IN60 display the error message and so on.  So off
you go to the code to see where these are set on and off.
OH NOOOOO!  The previous programer had a subscription
to Midrange Computing!  So in this program there is pointer
redirection to an externally described data structure with
names for the indicators, in that program pointers are used
to map the *in array to another array overlain with a
data structure with names, the third program does all
that and uses the AID byte.  Hours later, you finally finish
hand diagraming where IN30 is turned on.
If DDS allowed named indicators, then named indicators
would be the way to go, but as long DDS requires
numbered indicators, I would rather see the same
references used in the program.

Now let's see if we can't beat the 'os/400 commands
are easier to use than unix' flame war!







Lance Gillespie
Coachella Valley Water District