× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



> Now you're just nitpicking.  If you write programs where you set ON to
> *off, you have far deeper problems than I can help you with.

I'll talk to my shrink....
I would never set On to *Off. But I can't  guarentee that the other 5
programmers that changed the program after I wrote it will not have changed
the program and set On to *Off somewhere.


> Personally, I don't code infinite loops, so I don't care.  I ALWAYS code
> my programs with some sort of condition:
>
> Done = *off;
> DoU Done;

Every loop is infinite untill you meet a condition that makes you leave the
loop. You set Done to *on and then wait untill the program reaches the DO
statement again. Meanwhile preventing that statements that are not
applicable anymore are skipped and that DONE isn't reset by accidence. To me
that is not simple and clean.
I think that the DO statement is not the right place to leave the loop. The
right place for me to leave the loop is the place where you meet a condition
to leave that loop.  No chance of making mistakes.

Wilbert




As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.