My problem is that I think of SIGNAL as a sort of careless GOTO. No doubt it's often used that way (and really I have nothing against GOTO, when used in moderation), but since I know it isn't ~exactly~ a GOTO, in practice I don't use it at all because I don't feel I understand exactly what it does. I don't trust it, and I haven't yet bothered to learn to be comfortable with it.
--- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* As a father, I have a vested interest in seeing my children do well in school. If they don't, they won't graduate, and will probably wind up living in my house until they are thirty years old. This will interfere with my plan to reach retirement age without killing another human being. -W Bruce Cameron, _Study Habits_ (2001) */ -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of Rupert Reynolds Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2024 22:22 As a style thing, I'd be quite happy to initialise everything inline once, but if I need to re-initialise then I'd want to be sure everything is the same second time around, so I'd probably use 'procedure expose' to initialise (and 'signal on novalue' as well, to avoid being caught out by different behaviour on the second time around). There's nothing wrong with 'signal', of course, except that a lot of people reading the code won't be expecting it :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
