RE: dRE: No Subroutines (was Re: Debugging many subprocedures)

 
> I am just saying we should use the message handling system 
> IBM has given us. 


I agree. And the last time I checked, QMHSNDPM is part of that message
handling system, even when called directly! :)

> What I have tried to do with XVERRH is come 
> up with a standard error handling method that is consist and 
> I think that I have at least in my opinion done that.

Alan, I don't have any beef with the way you handle messages. The fact of
the matter is that your technique is old hat to me; I've used it for years
because I think it's a good technique. 

The thing is, the projects we have to work on out here are diverse in
nature. For example, my current contract project specifically prohibits the
use of message files. Personally, I find that a bummer, but they've
explained their reasoning, and it makes complete sense given the particulars
of their situation. There really are times when the use of a particular
technique, regardless of how cool it might be, is not appropriate given the
surrounding circumstances. 

> 
> Again, please don't take all this personal. Just stating my 
> opinion and typing fast. 
> 

I'm not personally offended by anything you've written. What I take
exception to is any suggestion by an individual that some feature of the
language is "bad" simply because they no longer find a need for it in their
own domain, and they therefore decide that no one should use it. I find such
a position to be short sighted, presumptuous, and arrogant. 

Preachers, politicians and code purists all seem to think they know what's
best for the rest of us.



Regards,

John Taylor