Re: Question about legacy coding style

[Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At one time there was a common practice of defining a work field as 
close as possible to where it is first used.   If the field's first use 
was not as a result field then one had to find another way to define it 
before it could be used.  That might have been the original thinking. 
Or not.

Another possibility was that the programmer just wanted all of his field 
definitions for each grouping of work fields together.  I do not 
understand why he would choose two lines though.  A search for "U1NU1" 
would be a logical way for a programmer to have a common practice of 
defining work fields.

But my memory tells me that at one time all work fields had to be 
defined in the C specs.  There was just no other way.



On 3/23/2011 10:20 PM, Craig Pelkie wrote:
> This is in some old code we are looking at:
>
> C U1
> CANNU1 MOVE X2DAT X2DAT 6 0
>
> C U1
> CANNU1 MOVE X2UDAT X2UDAT 6 0
>
> C U1
> CANNU1 MOVE X2TDT2 X2TDT2 6 0
>
> C U1
> CANNU1 MOVE X2DDAT X2DDAT 6 0
>
>
> It looks like an obscure way to define a field.
>
> What was the reasoning behind defining it like this?
>
> Thanks,
> Craig Pelkie