Re: Code problems with Perform Thru Exit causes fall through
- From: "tlmfru" <lacey@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:45:39 -0500
Richard <riplin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185584321.018963.77560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 28, 12:03 pm, "tlmfru" <la...@xxxxxxx> wrote:work?
Evrybody has a verb or two that they dislike. Who cares???? Does it
Is it easy to maintain?
SECTIONs do have their uses, for example segmentation. As I pointed
out above I dislike things that can easily lead to errors and that the
compiler won't tell you about. In fact I would use that as a
definition of what is _not_ 'easy to maintain' and _not_ 'perfectly
effective'.
The compiler can't tell if you should have used a minus instead of a plus
sign. Better ban it!
For example (as above) the simple absence of one SECTION word on a
label can cause a drop thru error that can be difficult to locate and
which the compiler gives no warning of.
The only purpose for using PERFORMed SECTIONs instead of having all
the labels as paragraphs is to allow the use of exit paragraphs and
the associated GO TOs. Thus this style suffers the errors in my other
messages of this topic, ones that the compiler cannot find for you.
Perhaps you find that these errors are simply a part of 'normal
programming' and find them easy, after all what would you do for the
rest of the week if they did not occur.
I don't find "these errors" happening at all. I have heard of the concept
called "testing" and use it all the time. I find that "testing" locates all
these errors. I'm a big advocate of "testing". I suppose you could be
right, though: if I didn't use "testing" then I would have a lot more to do
during the week. (FWIW, I don't use PERFORMED sections).
All sarcasm aside, you are making the mistake of assuming that since you do
things one way, that it is the only way to do it. Perhaps you could specify
what is acceptable program lifetime to qualify as the right way to do
things: I have several systems which are now over 15 years old and running
successfully - which accepted Y2K without changes - which have not been
changed at all except for spec. changes - different data formats, changed
calculations, a new report, etc. These systems use all sorts of syntax
which you would undoubtedly condemn. Your privelege. They work. Enough
said.
Does it follow the installation standards?
Discussion over!
Yes, that is often used to protect poor programming styles.
Also used to provoke thoughtless responses. D'you hold that installation
standards are automatically wrong? Or only when you disagree with them?
PL
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Code problems with Perform Thru Exit causes fall through
- From: Lizette Koehler
- Re: Code problems with Perform Thru Exit causes fall through
- From: Richard
- Re: Code problems with Perform Thru Exit causes fall through
- From: Doug Miller
- Re: Code problems with Perform Thru Exit causes fall through
- From: tlmfru
- Re: Code problems with Perform Thru Exit causes fall through
- From: Richard
- Code problems with Perform Thru Exit causes fall through
- Prev by Date: Re: Code problems with Perform Thru Exit causes fall through
- Next by Date: Re: unstring empty string
- Previous by thread: Re: Code problems with Perform Thru Exit causes fall through
- Next by thread: Re: Code problems with Perform Thru Exit causes fall through
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
