| Clark F Morris 2007-01-11, 9:55 pm |
| On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:34:44 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote in message
>news:4vimr5F1cedo7U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>Fair enough. Thanks for that.
>
>
>Yes, DECLARATIVES can be very useful. In the old days, before disks, we used
>them all the time to handle tape errors... :-)
I have never used declaratives because either the default processing
(normally abend) was adequate or I wanted to take specific action
based on the preceding I-O statement. If I needed to initiate a
generalized clean up process based on the type of error, I might find
it useful but with only one OPEN per type of OPEN per file, one I-O
statement per type of I-O per file and 1 CLOSE, it seemed never to do
anything for me. If a declarative were to give me access to system
information not otherwise available, it might buy me something. Maybe
I'll revisit the issue if I can see the use.
>
>That is very interesting to me as I'm getting into C# at the moment. I was
>wondering if any Corporates were looking at it... Statistics say they are,
>but it is nice to have this confirmed by some first hand reports.
>
>Er... I think it's called LE :-)
Seemingly written by someone who hasn't seen LE. While I know
relatively little about .NET, I suspect those in charge of it at
Microsoft would be insulted by the comparison. LE is less far
reaching in the areas that it supports and it is mainly a means of
having a common run-time for the procedural languages including C++ as
a procedural language.
>
>
>Thanks :-)
>
>Pete.
>
>
|