About 20 years ago I saw a programmer use a similar method. Like your observation, it seemed to work as they were Equated variables and not available in the debugger.
This programmer also felt that the program would compile faster by having all of the comment lines after the last logical END. Somehow he felt that the miniscule time that the compiler spent not compiling a comment line within the program was worth the time for another programmer (me) to constantly have to print the commented section just to get the narrative on the different code sections. Your key word is 'inherit' as in a relic from the past. Don't tell anyone outside of the MV community or we're doomed. My 1 cent Mark Johnson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Brevik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U2-users (E-mail)" <u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:11 PM Subject: [U2] [UV] Question about EQU > I inherited some code and I noticed that the programmer consistently placed his equates outside of the program flow, in other words, the equates would never be executed. Nevertheless, the DO get evaluated. For example: > > LABEL1: > FOR I = 1 TO 10 > PRINT 'HELLO WORLD' > NEXT > RETURN > > EQU THIS TO THAT, YIN TO YANG > > LABEL2: > I = 1 > LOOP > I += 1 > WHILE I LE 10 REPEAT > RETURN > > See how the EQU would never be "executed"? Since it works, I assume the tokenizer reads the whole program and picks up the equates, but what I want to know is, is there some reason for doing it this way, perhaps better performance or less memory used? > > Barry Brevik > ------- > u2-users mailing list > u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
