Re: Sub procedure end specification

[Alan Campin <alan0307d@xxxxxxxxx>]

This stuff drives me crazy. Why repeat the name of the procedure name three
times? I don't know of any other language that allows you to do that. What
purpose does it serve except cluttering up the code? I have no idea why IBM
even allow it.

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:13 AM, David FOXWELL <David.FOXWELL@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> I used to suggest to my colleagues that they systematically put the name of
> a sub procedure in the end specification instead of :
>
> D                                 E
>
> Our prototypes our declared in the source of the module. When searching for
> the name of a sub procedure in the source, you get a hit in a comment line
> before the prototype, the PR declaration, the comment before the sub
> procedure, the B declaration, the PI declaration, the call to the
> subprocedure and maybe other comments, but : never in the end of the
> subprocedure even though the subprocedure might be pages and pages of code.
>
> Well, this still hasn't caught on. So I've decided, if you can't beat'em,
> join'em and I no longer put the name of the subprocedure in the end spec. It
> makes for quicker compiling, as I always copy another sub procedure and
> forget to change the name at the end spec.
>
> My reasoning that the end spec name isn't necessary : if I can't see the
> start spec on the same page (ok 2 pages for greenscreeners), then my sub
> procedure is probably too dang long!!!!
>
>
> --
> This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (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.