Original Message
Subject:Re: Best (or any) practices to rewrite spaghetti or METAL/C
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 08:58:28 +0100
From: Miklos Szigetvari miklos.szigetv...@isis-papyrus.com
To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu
Hi
If we can
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
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
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
-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
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
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
-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
' will not stop Outerloop.
John
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
[mailto:ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 10:09 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Best (or any) practices to rewrite spaghetti
On Feb 3
-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 PM
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
Personally, I consider a 'branch to abnormal exit' much better than
trying to unwind all the 'perform' levels, be it COBOL or Assembler.
I have seen programs where they attempted to unwind everything during an
error and ended up processing code unintentionally.
Tony Thigpen
-Original
There's no reason your SP macro code can't include a jump to an error
handler when an error occurs.
Donald Knuth once wrote a scholarly article called Structured Programming
with GOTO Statements where he showed that attempts to be purely
structured were often more obscure than using a GOTO when
@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Best (or any) practices to rewrite spaghetti
John Ehrman wrote:
There's no reason your SP macro code can't include a jump to an error handler
when an error occurs.
Donald Knuth once wrote a scholarly article called Structured Programming
with GOTO Statements where he
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 actually _did_ help things. IMHO, rather than seeing
I'm sure others will tell you about coding techniques and structured macros
etc. My advice when improving old spaghetti assembler code is this:
Make sure you have a regression test library ready to insure that the
behavior of the new code matches the old code. Spaghetti code can hide a
lot of
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Tony Thigpen t...@vse2pdf.com wrote:
Personally, I consider a 'branch to abnormal exit' much better than
trying to unwind all the 'perform' levels, be it COBOL or Assembler.
I have seen programs where they attempted to unwind everything during an
error and
Hi
Thank you very much for everybody.
The answers has confirmed my view , to overuse a good technique can lead
to obscure results.
On 2/3/2011 9:15 PM, Roger Bolan wrote:
I'm sure others will tell you about coding techniques and structured macros
etc. My advice when improving old
18 matches
Mail list logo
