Re: *INZSR - I still love you!!!

[Hans Boldt <boldt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob cozzi wrote:
> Hans,
> While I don't necessarily use the RESET all that frequently, I have used it
> a few times and was very happy it was there.  If I set the initial value of
> a field to something other than zero, I may want to do a RESET on that field
> during a re-running of my program.
> Think about all those date fields that have a questionable initial value by
> default, I can simply do a RESET and they're back to their original values.
> No more coding another entry in the subroutine (or proc) to set reset the
> initial value for a field. I declare it, set the INZ keyword, and I'm ready
> to go; I don't have to remember to add an assignment statement to some
> procedure or subroutine somewhere.
> I also think *INZSR is a great feature and wish dearly that a *TERMSR would
> have been implemented in RPG IV (I could still use it today, even more so.)

Bob: Speaking as a compiler developer, considering the trouble the 
opcode has been for us versus possible benefits of the opcode, I think 
on balance the opcode has simply been more trouble than its worth. Sure, 
it's a "cute" expedient, but not essential by any stretch of the 
imagination. The alternatives are easy and straight-forward.

BTW, even in V5R3, RESET does not support fully-qualified names. And I'm 
not sure if RESET can easily be enhanced at all to support them.

In principle, I don't disagree with a *TERMSR, or better yet, a 
*TERMPROC. But again, you already know about the options currently 
available. And like RESET, I suspect a *TERMPROC feature may also be 
more troublesome than its worth. (But other compiler developers know 
that area much better than I do.)

Cheers! Hans