Re: *INZSR - I still love you!!!

Hans, 
of course I am still writing cycle programs.   This is still RPG isn't it? 
The cycle is there.  Of course one can reinvent the cycle with every RPG
program one writes but why?  The only compelling reason I've ever seen is
for ease of maintenance for non-RPG programmers.  The assumption must be
that non-RPG programmers aren't smart enough to understand the cycle.  I don
t happen to accept that particular assumption.
 
 
 
---------------------------------------------------------
Booth Martin   http://www.MartinVT.com
Booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Date: 1/13/2004 2:41:35 PM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: *INZSR - I still love you!!!
 
Booth Martin wrote:
> Hans, its not about saving an EXSR line.  *INZSR runs before one can EXSR.
 
As I mentioned earlier (and as Douglas re-iterated), that's only an
issue if you're doing cycle programming. Are you still writing cycle
programs?
 
>
> So far as putting the initialization lines up front...  I find nothing
> useful about that concept.  I do not miss the old days when we had to wade
> through dozens of lines of initialization code before we could see the
real
> program.  I want to see the mainline as soon as possible. Additionally I'd
> really  prefer to have the initialization code off to one side where I can
> review it separately..
>
 
Of course, traditionally your mainline code should have consisted of
just three statements: call initialization; call input; call output.
 
If you want your initialization in a separate subroutine, without *INZSR
you still have the option to put it in a separate subroutine which you
would call explicitly. It's then also clear when reading top-down that
there is initialization happening. Now, you can never be sure that
you're not missing some vital initialization in some *INZSR pages down
in the subroutine section of the code.
 
Cheers! Hans