In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 01/18/2006
at 04:02 PM, Rob Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Please can you point me to some documentation that says that this is
>inefficient?
That's not the sort of question that belongs in the documentation, but
it should be clear to you that an extraneous statement adds to the
processing time. That's true whether or not
ADDRESS ISREDIT x
x
take the same time or different amounts of time.
>How is it confusing to have a way of knowing exactly where you
>command buffer is going?
It isn't confusing to know; it's confusing to be given the same
information repeatedly, especially if you don't know that it will
always be the same.
>A usage note on using "address (env)" on every call is that on
>return the address environment is returned to whatever is was before
>you made the call
What call? I don't see calls, only ISPF and EDIT commands.
>so in essence we have a PUSH/POP environment
Not in the code under discussion we don't.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
