If you are using free-format control Statement, which replaces the old punch card spec, that use to be called the H-Spec.
ctl-opt Option( *SrcStmt : *NoDebugIO );
And of course, RDI will provide you with Code-Assist for Free-format and also on-line help on this! <Joy Joy>
PS. Be sure to start in column 8, because of Punch Card legacy for sequence numbers. For when the Developers dropped their punch cards on the floor.
This is not needed in Modern/post-punch card languages like Java, C, C++, C#, Python, Objective-C, PHP, VB, JavaScript, Perl, etc... <ROLMAO>
Because they evolved past Punch cards LAST Century! <shock!>
-Ken Killian-
-----Original Message-----
From: WDSCI-L [mailto:wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roche, Bob
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 10:06 AM
To: Rational Developer for IBM i / Websphere Development Studio Client for System i & iSeries
Subject: Re: [WDSCI-L] RDi 9.5 announcement
H option(*SRCSTMT)
Now the compiler uses your line numbers. I also add *NODEBUGIO.
-----Original Message-----
From: WDSCI-L [mailto:wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Yeung
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 8:48 AM
To: Rational Developer for IBM i / Websphere Development Studio Client for System i & iSeries <wdsci-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [WDSCI-L] RDi 9.5 announcement
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Roche, Bob <broche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why do you not like sequence numbers? When there is a problem in the code, isn't it nice to have the system tell you where it is? It's not like RDI make syou look at them.
I think folks that don't like sequence numbers are specifically against *stored* sequence numbers. Personally, I consider them to be mostly harmless, but completely useless. I have auto-renumbering on, and compiler listings have their own sequence number anyway.
When I say "mostly harmless", the very small harm I see is threefold:
(1) costs a small amount of storage, (2) costs a minuscule amount of CPU to do recalculation, (3) creates a slight amount of confusion (does a line number refer to the stored sequence number or the compiler-assigned sequence number?). I cannot stress enough that these are very, very small costs. But for me, there is zero benefit. Display of sequence numbers should be handled dynamically by the editor, and error messages should report the ordinal line number accordingly. You can see in RPG IV compiler listings and dumps that IBM had precisely this in mind. And folks programming in other languages on other platforms had been doing without stored line numbers (happily!) for decades prior to RPG IV.
John Y.
--
This is the Rational Developer for IBM i / Websphere Development Studio Client for System i & iSeries (WDSCI-L) mailing list To post a message email: WDSCI-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/wdsci-l
or email: WDSCI-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/wdsci-l.
--
This is the Rational Developer for IBM i / Websphere Development Studio Client for System i & iSeries (WDSCI-L) mailing list To post a message email: WDSCI-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/wdsci-l
or email: WDSCI-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/wdsci-l.
midrange.com
