On 4/16/2012 12:26 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
Suppose that I wish to do something to each of the elements of an
assembly-time array in turn. In the macro language of the HLASM I
must write something like
|&ne seta n'&array
|&i seta 0
|.traverse_loop anop
|&i seta&i+1
|&elements_exhausted setb (&i gt&ne)
| aif (&elements_exhausted).traverse_lend
| . . .<process&array(&i)
| ago .traverse_loop
|.traverse_lend anop
"Must" you? <g> In this case I would prefer:
.* &i seta 0 *default*
.trvloop aif (&i ge n'&array).trvend
&i seta &i+1
. . .<process&array(&i)>
ago .trvloop
.trvend anop ,
That's six statements instead of nine. I was raised in the era
of six (ForTran) and eight character variables, and find those
easier to read. I'd use &ne only for larger array sizes; for
small ones the savings are not noticeable.
Whether or not code is aesthetically pleasing is very much a
matter of nurture. With effective comments, the structure of
code isn't all that critical, and discussions of GOTO versus
GOTO-less programming are about as useful as religious arguments.
Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, VT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
