Re: Standards question: What isyour feeling about%found&%eofvs.%found(file) & %eof(file) ?

On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 10:14 -0500, Francis Lapeyre wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but why chain to a record you just accessed with a
READE?

In any event, this is the usual way I do reade loops:

Setll Key_List File;
if %Equal(file);
Dou %EOF(File);
Reade Key_List File;
If %EOF(File);
Leave;
Endif;

// process your stuff here..

Enddo;
Endif;
This way, the loop is avoided if there is nothing to process.

Are you choosing to "avoid" the loop for readability or for machine
efficiency? I suggest that machine efficiency should not be a
consideration here.

I dislike unreachable code as it always raises a suspicion that I have
missed something. So FWIW, to avoid the never-satisfied condition on
the DOU, I prefer ...

Setll Key_List File;
Dow 0 = 0;
Reade Key_List File;
If %eof();
Leave:
Endif;

The virtues I see here are (1) just one input statement, (2) just one
statement to exit from the loop, and (3) the input and the test are
close together. Perhaps IBM will someday give us a single statement to
accomplish this, something like

forRecordSet [Key_List] File;
// process one record here
endFor;

Cheers,
Terry.


--
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.