Re: To be under Indicators or not to be

[Sam_L <lennon_s_j@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Three points:

1) Data type N should be under fields.  I have often looked at a field 
in the code, then gone to the outline view and been unable to find it, 
eventually realizing it was data type N.

Those are the ones that should be under fields because they are really 
1-byte fields, with the added bonus that you can use *ON & *OFF with 
them and say "If NamedIndicator" to evaluate to true or false.

2) Now if the name is defined as part of an *IN data structure or an 
INDDS data structure it should probably be under indicators.

3) Off topic:  I strongly support the idea of being able to put the 
cursor on a field and then some keystroke combination finds it in the 
outline, so I can see where else it is used.

Sam

On 9/25/2012 12:35 PM, Edmund Reinhardt wrote:
> We would like to know if there is a strong preference to move Named
> indicators under the Fields heading so that all fields can be found in one
> place and only predefined indicator usage being shown under the Indicators
> heading.
> On the other hand would anyone be upset about not finding the Named
> indicators under the Indicators heading any more?
>
> IBM is listening.