RE: RPG Cycle (was Multi-Occurring DS)

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-