RE: More on RPG style

Personal choice then, I guess. To me that seems excessive. You need to create a D-spec for No.

I believe this is generally accepted as a coding technique:
If not %eof(fileName);

It's really no different.

-Kurt Anderson

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wintermute, Sharon
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:19 AM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Subject: RE: More on RPG style


Whether it is coded as isDomestic() or isInternational() they could both
return a false return.

Rather than say:
If not isInternational(phoneNumber);

I would use:
If isInternational(phoneNumber) = No;


This way the mind does not try to evaluate the NOT before the answer is
returned.


Sharon Wintermute


-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kurt Anderson
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:48 AM
To: 'RPG programming on the IBM i / System i'
Subject: RE: More on RPG style

There have been some comments about not issuing (or avoiding - to avoid
using the word "not") separate returns. In the case where I feel I need
to drop out of the procedure immediately instead of allowing logic
flowing to the end of the procedure, I'll typically create a "EndProc"
subroutine where I'll issue the Return and do any other end-of-procedure
type stuff I need done.

In regard to it being generally believed that "not" should not be used,
I guess I've overlooked that in the 8+ years I've been on this list. I
tend to believe that a procedure's return value, if an indicator, should
be '1' in the case where the procedure completed successfully.

If isInternational(phoneNumber);

However, there may be a case where I only care if it's not
international.

If not isInternational(phoneNumber);

Of course, I could also have instead called the procedure isDomestic()
so the return value would reflect whether it was Domestic or not
(instead of whether or not it was International).

If that makes any sense.

I guess I do my best to allow for readability, and don't want my code to
have "not"s all over the place, but if I feel I need to use one, it
doesn't make me step back and question my code. (Maybe it should?)

Thanks
Kurt Anderson

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David FOXWELL
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:44 AM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Subject: More on RPG style

Hi,

I tend to divide my code into subprocedures in a program just to improve
readability, even when there is very little risk of that subprocedure
being called from anywhere else. Each subprocedure will correspond to a
specific task executed by the program.

Eg,

/FREE

IF not doThis ( )
RETURN

ENDIF;

IF NOT DoThat ( )
RETURN

ENDIF;

/END-FREE

In these cases I will use global variables unless not possible. That
leaves me with a load of one line prototype declarations in my code :

D doThis PR
D doThat PR

I've just discovered that this style seems to annoy at least one
programmer who prefers to see all the code in one main procedure and
does not like to see all those PR's PI's and returns, etc. Rather
embarassing.

Am I justified in coding in this way or am I wrongly using
subprocedures?