Re: Best (or any) practices to rewrite spaghetti

2011-02-04 Thread Don Higgins
Miklos, all Good question. I'm not sure the following is a best practice, but I've found it useful in developing z390 in Java and zcobol in z390 assembler. I have used several callable routines to handle all error messages and aborts. One routine called log_error(error_number,error_msg) logs

Re: Best (or any) practices to rewrite spaghetti

2011-02-04 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:57, Edward Jaffe wrote: On 2/3/2011 10:41 AM, Johanson, Adam wrote: Then, I told myself that the whole point of the exercise was to make the code more readable, so a branch to a return-to-caller label every now and then didn't really defeat the purpose and

Re: Best (or any) practices to rewrite spaghetti

2011-02-04 Thread Miklos Szigetvari
Hi Thank you. Try to consider this, i.e if I can make some common error routine set. Currently every error label does something special . On 2/4/2011 3:31 PM, Don Higgins wrote: Miklos, all Good question. I'm not sure the following is a best practice, but I've found it useful in

SV: Best (or any) practices to rewrite spaghetti

2011-02-04 Thread Thomas Berg
-Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER- l...@listserv.uga.edu] För Paul Gilmartin Skickat: den 4 februari 2011 16:09 Till: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Ämne: Re: Best (or any) practices to rewrite spaghetti On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:57, Edward

Re: Best (or any) practices to rewrite spaghetti

2011-02-04 Thread Rob van der Heij
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

Re: SV: Best (or any) practices to rewrite spaghetti

2011-02-04 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Feb 4, 2011, at 08:40, Thomas Berg 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

SV: SV: Best (or any) practices to rewrite spaghetti

2011-02-04 Thread Thomas Berg
-Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER- l...@listserv.uga.edu] För Paul Gilmartin Skickat: den 4 februari 2011 17:54 Till: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Ämne: Re: SV: Best (or any) practices to rewrite spaghetti On Feb 4, 2011, at 08:40,

Re: Best (or any) practices to rewrite spaghetti

2011-02-04 Thread Bodoh John Robert
Sorry, REXX SIGNAL does not suck; you just don't know how to use it. It only trashes the current DO...END structure. It works just fine if you code something like: DO Outerloop = 1 to n Call processes_item End Process_item: Signal ... Return Any errors encountered in 'Process_item' will not

SV: Best (or any) practices to rewrite spaghetti

2011-02-04 Thread Thomas Berg
-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

REXX SIGNAL (Was: Best (or any) practices to rewrite spaghetti)

2011-02-04 Thread Edward Jaffe
On 2/4/2011 7:08 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Rexx SIGNAL sucks. One one hand, it trashes the DO...END structure; OTOH it leaves the subroutine return stack hanging (a naive colleague once authored a Rexx program that used SIGNAL to get out of Dodge. He tested it, apparently successfully. It