Or to be controversial:
tab.T = countt=countT+1
tab.U = countU=countU+1
tab.V = countV=countV+1
tab.W = countW=countW+1
INTERPRET tab.idx
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:01 PM Wayne Bickerdike <wayn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CA-IDEAL has SELECT FIRST ACTION AND SELECT EVERY ACTION. That I like.
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:59 PM Wayne Bickerdike <wayn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For brevity, if you don't like DO END.
>>
>> select
>> when idx="T" then countt=countt+1
>> when idx="U" then countu=countu+1
>> when idx="V" then countv=countv+1
>> when idx="W" then countw=countw+1
>> otherwise countx=countx+1; end
>>
>> Could be :
>> SELECT( idx)
>> when ("T") then countt=countt+1
>> when ("U") then countu=countu+1
>> when ("V") then countv=countv+1
>> when ("W") then countw=countw+1
>> otherwise countx=countx+1; end
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:08 PM Bob Bridges <robhbrid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No, I wasn't complaining about the SELECT statement, only about using
>>> lots of DO/statement/ENDs when there's only a single statement. I would
>>> code the same thing like this:
>>>
>>> select
>>> when idx="T" then countt=countt+1
>>> when idx="U" then countu=countu+1
>>> when idx="V" then countv=countv+1
>>> when idx="W" then countw=countw+1
>>> otherwise countx=countx+1; end
>>>
>>> (Of course if that were a real example I would probably have found a way
>>> to use a stem variable instead:
>>>
>>> count.idx=count.idx+1
>>>
>>> But in this case I was just talking about coding style, as Mr Metz said.)
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
>>>
>>> /* If a problem has a single neck, it has a simple solution. */
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
>>> On Behalf Of Lou Losee
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2020 14:38
>>>
>>> Would you rather code the select as a series of nested if-then-else?
>>>
>>> --- On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 1:35 PM Bob Bridges <robhbrid...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > The only language I can think of off-hand that doesn't require some
>>> sort
>>> > of END to close a DO (I'm sure there are others) is ISPF. But, in
>>> REXX at
>>> > least, I never use single-statement DOs. I see them all the time, and
>>> I
>>> > don't get it. Like this:
>>> >
>>> > if x=0 then do
>>> > x=x+1
>>> > end
>>> >
>>> > Or, more painfully:
>>> >
>>> > select
>>> > when idx="T" then
>>> > do
>>> > countt=countt+1
>>> > end
>>> > when idx="U" then
>>> > do
>>> > countu=countu+1
>>> > end
>>> > when idx="V" then
>>> > do
>>> > countv=countv+1
>>> > end
>>> > when idx="W" then
>>> > do
>>> > countw=countw+1
>>> > end
>>> > otherwise
>>> > do
>>> > countx=countx+1
>>> > end
>>> > end
>>> >
>>> > Why? If it were easier to read, I might sympathize. But it's harder,
>>> not
>>> > easier.
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
>>> On
>>> > Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
>>> > Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2020 14:40
>>> >
>>> > But in Rexx similarly, END is required even for a single-statement DO.
>>> > Good for Rexx. I like strong closure.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Wayne V. Bickerdike
>>
>>
>
> --
> Wayne V. Bickerdike
>
>
--
Wayne V. Bickerdike
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
