×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Hi Barbara,
On 2010/9/29 8:55 AM, Larry Ducie wrote:
... The process
continues from the next line of code as if nothing went wrong. You
can't beat that!
<snip>
Larry, it can be dangerous to set the action parameter to resume at the
next instruction. The process doesn't continue from the next line of
high-level-language code, it continues from the next low-level machine
instruction. Whatever low-level instruction that happens to be at that
release and PTF level. There's no guaranteed upward compatibility for
what the next machine instruction is.
</snip>
Your point is well taken, and this not not something we do often or lightly. Our support team don't even have the option to do this.
I understand that a single line of high level code can cause a stack of low level lines of code to run (such as during a chain or reade). I would not, for instance, even attempt to proceed to the next instruction if a call failed because the object could not be located. The call is already trashed as the object location is not set.
Would this level of caution extend to a simple a = b / c where c is zero? We have had examples where c came from a configuration file and a developer forgot to set the value when promoting the code. In that instance we can fix c in debug and do the math on a calculator and set a. Then let it run. Fixing the config file prevents re-occurances of course. Would this also not be a wise move?
Your thoughts, as always, are most welcome.
Cheers
Larry Ducie
midrange.com
