CALL ON is intend for exception handlers that return; that code should never have survived review.
It's SIGNAL ON that unwinds the stack. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <0000042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 7:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Rexx numeric digits and scientific notation question On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:24:38 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: >CALL ON or SIGNAL ON? > ??? CALL ON to a procedure coded in front of the main loop and drop through without RETURN? That would make things worse. He would have wanted ITERATE ON. >________________________________________ >From: Paul Gilmartin >Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 5:38 PM >On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:36:12 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: > >>"unwinds" in a very disruptive and partial fashion. I once debugged a naive >>co-workers >program which handled an exception in a subroutine by SIGNAL to top of main >loop. >Worked fine in a modest test data set. Overflowed CALL/RETURN stack on a >larger >data set. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
