In a message dated 2/4/2004 11:40:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Earlier PQ proc didn't have read/write so they developed a sideline language
called BATCH which did these tasks. BATCH is officially removed from the
direct decendancy of R80/83 as D3 doesn't recognize it
worked with ...
Cheers,
Wol
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Mark Johnson
Sent: 05 February 2004 04:41
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: Re: Proc or Para
Here, Here!! I agree with Chuck on the value of procs. Being a 25 year
proctologist
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Stuart Boydell
Sent: 05 February 2004 07:08
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: RE: Proc or Para
Isn't it great to have choices.
Choice, yeah sure; but um, why wouldn't you just write a
program
Yeah, they evolved, perhaps too far, but essentially it was
a simple
procedural tool.
Wrong way round.
Huh? I said Procs in the PQ form came before PQN's... Waz
wrong wi' dat?
The evolution was PQ to PQN ... From simple batch (step 1 to
2 to 3) we
moved to labels (step 1 to 2 to (if a = b) then
THERE on any system I ever worked with ...
Cheers,
Wol
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Mark Johnson
Sent: 05 February 2004 04:41
To: U2 Users Discussion List
Subject: Re: Proc or Para
Here, Here!! I agree with Chuck on the value of procs
Procs are definitely a subject that will start a good debate. I don't
think Procs offer any performance advantage at all. It does offer the
ability to do things that are possible in paragraphs like PROCWRITES. That
said, I personally have never been a fan of procs.
I started out in the
At 12:38 PM 02/04/2004, you wrote:
All,
Is there a performance advantage to using one or the other? I realize this
might be a touchy topic but it's one I've been wondering about for some
time. the ProVerb manual makes it sound like procs were a migration tool
of sorts.
Paragraphs are only
