Re: Quick question on indicators - more philosophical than anything else

Doug Palme wrote:

Is anyone still using the old indicator style of INKC, INKA, etc.?

I've almost entirely moved to using numbered indicators (CA03 03), because then I can use an INDDS and then change them to named indicators. Some folks prefer the INFDS approach, but I don't. However, this is one of those few instances where I can't argue tooth and nail for my position - I don't have a good reason why I prefer numbered indicators over INFDS. I guess I like write (if ExitKey) rather than (if key = Exit).

Is there any reason why this should even be used today?

Nope. I can't think of a good reason to use *INKx anymore. In fact, the only indicator I can see ever showing up in a program is *INLR.

I know some are advocating using no indicators at all in a program....but is that not one of the strengths of RPG?

This is a philosophical point. Indicators were great for the original RPG because space was at a premium and indicators allowed you to test three conditions using only 9 columns. Way cool. But these days, the very idea of a numbered indicator is just not justifiable. Named indicators, sure - they're basically a set of Boolean flags you send primarily to your user interface to interact with the user. But I can't see any reason for numbered indicators any more than I can justify 2-digit years.

Joe