RE: RPG Cycle (was Multi-Occurring DS)

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric

Ah the word of the week! Obfuscation - love it!

Seems to me EVERY language at some point hides certain aspects of its 
processing. From assembly to BASIC to 4GLs - whatever. What we 
tolerate or consider "good" varies, as well. I could press you a bit 
and say that you should write in C if you want to show clearly ALL 
the I/O operations. F-specs do lots of things implicitly that we 
would have to do explicitly in other languages. As some 
green-haired-kids might say, "It's all good!"

So I don't see anything especially WRONG with using MR or levels or 
look-ahead -- or certain naming conventions, as we discussed briefly 
in another thread (what a relief to be brief!) We all make choices 
for reasons we have - often we end up in a shop and it's best to do 
it their way. And if you are or have been a contractor as I have, or 
if you have software with any history, you had better know lots of 
options and be able to replicate them.

And your technique of using procedures for this - well - it's the 
same as IBM has already done with the cycle - you just wrote your 
own, in effect - hope it's in a service program.

Regards
Vern

At 02:14 PM 12/19/2007, you wrote:
> Taken at the most basic level, yes, the cycle is not hard to 
> understand.  But my objective as a developer is to be absolutely 
> explicit in my implementation of the requirements set forth in my 
> assignment.  I do not want to obfuscate my intent by leaving out 
> something as important as an I/O operation.

-snip-