Maybe that's another topic, but I found it always very strange to spread application logic over a bunch of ISPF table definitions. I believe the application logic should reside in program modules, written in a conventional programming language, for example PL/1, COBOL or C.
If I would use the panel logic, then only for very limited formal checks (is the entered value one of the allowed list, which, in my opinion, should be visible to the user on the panel, or at least in the help texts). Kind regards Bernd Am Dienstag, 10. Oktober 2006 00:21 schrieben Sie: > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/09/2006 > > at 07:42 PM, Dave Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >What about ISPF panel 'logic'; is that a programming language? > > No, nor am I convinced that it should be extended enough to become a > language. In particular, I don't currently see the value of iteration > in an ISPF panel, although it's possible that I would if I took a hard > look at it. > > Some things that were not intended to be used as programming languages > but that qualified can and have been used for applications like > Johnson's marvelous dancing bear; the marvel wasn't how well it > danced, but that it danced at all. An example of that was my use[1] of > SCRIPTW to generate a DASD backup schedule. > > [1] Yes, it really was the easiest way, however bizarre it seems. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
