For edit macro's, placing the cursor at the end risks far less data than leaving the cursor alone. Right or wrong is a matter of opinion. Leaving the cursor at the current location will certainly teach programmers to check return codes and not make false assumptions the first time they destroy their data because they didn't check the return code.
Jon Perryman. On Saturday, August 2, 2014 6:36 AM, Paul Gilmartin <0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > >On Sat, 2 Aug 2014 12:47:23 +0200, Arthur Fichtl wrote: >> >>... a well-behaved >>editor should leave the file position unchanged. >> >>I disagree, although having an option would be more user friendly, as >>would optional first and last operands on FIND. >> >>Additionally to Pauls' remark let me point to the powerful Macro Facility of >>ISPF EDIT. >>You can easliy -if you want- create a personal, let's say XFIND, command, >>that remembers the cursor position and stays on the last found line in case >>no further hits are found. >> >??? Why a macro? In my experience the native behavior of ISPF >EDIT is to leave the cursor position unchanged when no further >hit is found. (And I prefer "unchanged" over "last found line" >for the cases when the cursor was most recently positioned by >other than a FIND command.) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
