Re: Standards question: What is your feeling about %found & %eof vs. %found(file) & %eof(file)

This all goes back to what Jon Paris said earlier in this thread. Your
approach is good and all until somebody other than you goes in to modify the
code and starts separating out the chain from the %found (maybe even adding
some additional chains in-between). That's when those bugs come into play
that can take a day to resolve and at that point you have lost all you
thought you gained by not fully qualifying the %found/%eof.

Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 4:15 AM, john e <jacobus1968@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I always try to create readable (or "self documenting") code and always use
%eof instead of %eof(name), because IMO this is much more readable. It is
applying the priniciple of DRY (dont repeat yourself).
Unless, of course, the qualification is necessary. And this is an
exception.


chain (custno) CUSTFILE
if %found;
endif;

is much easier to read than:

chain (custno) CUSTFILE
if %found(CUSTFILE);
endif;

Because in the latter case each time you read the code you have to check
the qualification and if it really is referring to the last file operation.
Although in most cases this is always the case. And reading/interpreting the
unnecessary qualifier each time interferes with comprehending the code.

Also, when copying and pasting source you have to make sure you also change
the corresponding qualifier. Always using a (unnecessary) qualifier makes
you repeat the filename and this is then another source of error.