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