× 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.



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




As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.