> -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER- > l...@listserv.uga.edu] För Rob van der Heij > Skickat: den 4 februari 2011 17:56 > Till: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Ämne: Re: Best (or any) practices to rewrite "spaghetti" > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Thomas Berg <thomas.b...@swedbank.se> > wrote: > > > I don't quite understand Your problems with SIGNAL. AFAICS, You use > SIGNAL > > when the situation is such that You can't handle it within Your REXX > routine > > logic/context. That's is, You must abort all processing and (normally) > give > > a comprehensive error message, maybe also log it. > > The "abort all processing" is the magic. At best show some diagnostic > information to diagnose the problem. But not everyone can resist the > temptation... > > I found some code where a bright soul had put a "restart:" somewhere > in the REXX program and then a "signal restart" in the "error:" > handler. Unfortunately the trapped error was in a "procedure" so once > the program went though that path, it continued with part of the REXX > variables hidden outside the scope (but filling up memory). >
I don't understand how anyone can have any decent confidence in a routine that continue processing after a SIGNAL. It's more or less like continue driving after taking LSD. :) Regards, Thomas Berg _________________________________________ Thomas Berg Specialist A M SWEDBANK
