Re: No Subroutines (was Re: Debugging many subprocedures)

[David Gibbs <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joe Pluta wrote:
> If a chunk of code has no parameters, and affects only global 
> variables like fields on the screen, then how exactly is it better to
>  wrap that chunk of code in a procedure?

Initially, it gains me nothing ... but I now have the freedom to add
local variables, parameters if they are needed in the future, etc.

Unless absolutely necessary, I probably wouldn't have it operate on
global variables anyways, I'd pass in the information that's needed, so
I can 'black box' the routine (and possibly externalize it in the future).

> You have to add the begin and end procedure as well as the rather 
> redundant one-line prototype at the beginning of the code.  It gets 
> even more painful with /free, since you have to also add the /free 
> and /end-free, since the P and D specs aren't free-form.

Eh, no biggie, IMHO.

> And procedures can be misused most horribly.  One of the worst 
> offenses I see is procedure with a bunch of return opcodes strewn 
> throughout it. At least with a subroutine you can stick a breakpoint 
> on the ENDSR and know it will get there.

So can indicators ... and we all know how powerful indicators are.  ;)

> It's when people get zealous and start trashing other people because
> they use subroutines that my blood pressure rises.

True enough ... I'm currently trying to _gently_ encourage my
co-workers to use more procedures ... but only where they obviously make
more sense.

david