Re: Question about legacy coding style

The idea was to see the definitions of the code in one place, but non-executable. I remember this from System/3 cycle programs that didn't even have subroutines, although I think we used LRNLR rather than U1NU1. Some used 99N99, but that meant you had to define indicator 99 somewhere in your program. LR and the U switches were always defined. The goal was to avoid embedding work field lengths in the program and having to hunt them down when fields needed to change size.

The next step up was to add a first time subroutine that did all of that.

Joe

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