Re: Standards question: What is your feeling about %found & %eofvs. %found(file) & %eof(file) ? -- RPG400-L

Subject: Re: Standards question: What is your feeling about %found & %eofvs. %found(file) & %eof(file) ?
From: Buck <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:50:58 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l>
List-help: <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries <rpg400-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:rpg400-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Paul wrote:

Has anyone had any real issues in not qualifying the bif with the file
name......other than cases where the I/O Opcode and the test were separated
by more than one statement number?

Nope.

I don't have a particularly strong feeling on the matter either way. I've always used the non-qualified form and liked it, but if I went to work at a place that insisted on the qualified form, I'd have no trouble changing styles to match.
--buck

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.