Re: Service programs and QSRVSRC

I hate code with modification comments. Makes the code an absolute nightmare
to read.

That is what CMPSRC is for.

Years ago I read an article on code readability. They had programs that
rated programs on readability and the number one thing that reduced the
score is dead code in the program.

The only exception I have to that rule is when I am making a mod to a vendor
program and I will have to incorporate changes into a new version.

IMO.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Rory Hewitt <roryhewitt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark,

Thi is why we have 'modification' comment lines in all changed source
members (including QSRVSRC members) noting what was added/removed etc., by
whom and why. It works just as well as the *PRV method, but without the
downside that the source member contains LOTS of old *PRV code...

Rory

"M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message> Hi Buck,

A downside to that approach is that the programmer looking at the
single sig doesn't know that there was some history to this
*SRVPGM. Using *PRV would usually accomplish the same goal (no
recompile required to those programs that are not using the new
functionality), but would let the programmer know that there might be
multiple versions around.

--
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.