For the record, and to repeat what I said in my previous email more or less,
I agree with your refined statement of sub routine usage. I pretty much
only use them when I DON'T need local variables and instead the code uses
entirely global variables. With that said I only use global variables when
it makes sense.
Now, if sub procedures became entirely free format and didn't require a
prototype I would probably use them as a complete replacement for sub
routines.
Thanks for expanding on your reasoning,
Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Steve Richter
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 11:20 AM
To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: Todays WTF
On 8/10/07, albartell <albartell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I agree with your definition of how sub procs helped your situation
and that is the same approach that I took. That still doesn't address
your original comment of putting sub routines with the likes of
GOTO's, but if your re-definition below serves as a sort of retract to
say sub routines can SOMETIMES be beneficial then I will just drop my
challenge.
Aaron,
complexity = a lot of details. details are details, no matter the origin.
When you are reading code that contains a GOTO, the unimplied return point
of the GOTO is one more detail you have to keep track of.
When the subrtn uses a global variable that is assigned to in one routine
and then used as input 3 routines down the call stack, that is another
detail. The end result, is a pile of details that unnecessarily bog down
your work.
-Steve
--
This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or
change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.
midrange.com
