RE: Starting out with sub-procedures

[Joel Cochran <jrc@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 21:49, Scott Klement wrote:
> NOMAIN specifically means that there is no main procedure.  That's why
> it's called "no main."  :)
> 
> Did I phrase it incorrectly the first time?

When I read this:

> > You can have subprocedures and "NOMAIN" without any conflict. 

I took it to mean you thought that <i>I</i> thought there was a conflict
between sub-procs and NOMAIN, so I just was defending myself.  Clear as
mud? :-)

> Perhaps 90% of the subprocedures that I write go into the same source
> member as my main procedure.  I use them in a similar fashion to the way
> you'd use a subroutine.
> 
> The other 10% of the time, I'm writing something that can be used from
> many different places -- those routines get put into a "H NOMAIN" source
> member, which gets compiled/bound into a service program with other
> similar procedures.

We are definitely opposite here.  While I rarley write a subroutine
anymore because I use internal sub-procs, most of my "sub-procedural
effort" so to speak are in developing tools that can be reused, like you
via service programs.  You are 90/10 and I am 10/90, but that's okay,
plenty of room on this big blue ball for all of us!

Joel
http://www.rpgnext.com