I think we need more info. What do you mean by literals? Report
headers, values to compare to, screen output? As always, the answer is
most likely our old friend "it depends".
If you HAVE to define them in a program, I'd wholeheartedly vote for the
"one section of the d-specs - preferably a /copy" route. Ease of
understanding trumps any micro-micro-miniscule performance aspect in my
mind. I have to think the compiler is plenty smart enough to optimize
handling of literals regardless of how you declare them.
I like Birgitta's externalization of them. I'm going to save that idea
to use down the road.
Tommy.Holden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 05/04/2007 7:47:01 AM >>>
Literals will be handled by the compiler...the reason for Bruce's
"feeling" is IMO ease of maintenance. If the literal is defined in
every program every program will have to be modified before recompiling.
Having the literals defined in a common copybook you only touch the
copybook to make the change and then just recompile the programs that
reference the copybook...you can't imagine the time this would save...
Thanks,
Tommy Holden
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[
mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kent Hohlen
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 9:26 AM
To: RPG400 (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Benefits of declaring literals in D-specs
A couple more questions.
Bruce, you said you thought having literals within the executable
portion of a program should be avoided. Are there any facts to base
your opinion
or is just the way you feel? If it is your feeling, why do you feel
this way?
I personally agree with your feeling, but I don't have any reasons to
backup my feeling.
Does anyone know (I'm looking your way Barbara Morris) if there is any
performance impact, good or bad, for declaring all literals in the
D-specs?
My feeling is the system would only have to interpret the literal once
when it is declared in the D-spec, but maybe this is handled by the
compiler
and isn't an issue.
Kent Hohlen
Eagle Window And Door
midrange.com
