In PL/I, yes, but not in REXX.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Wayne Bickerdike [wayn...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 12:59 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL Question For brevity, if you don't like DO END. select when idx="T" then countt=countt+1 when idx="U" then countu=countu+1 when idx="V" then countv=countv+1 when idx="W" then countw=countw+1 otherwise countx=countx+1; end Could be : SELECT( idx) when ("T") then countt=countt+1 when ("U") then countu=countu+1 when ("V") then countv=countv+1 when ("W") then countw=countw+1 otherwise countx=countx+1; end On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:08 PM Bob Bridges <robhbrid...@gmail.com> wrote: > No, I wasn't complaining about the SELECT statement, only about using lots > of DO/statement/ENDs when there's only a single statement. I would code > the same thing like this: > > select > when idx="T" then countt=countt+1 > when idx="U" then countu=countu+1 > when idx="V" then countv=countv+1 > when idx="W" then countw=countw+1 > otherwise countx=countx+1; end > > (Of course if that were a real example I would probably have found a way > to use a stem variable instead: > > count.idx=count.idx+1 > > But in this case I was just talking about coding style, as Mr Metz said.) > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* If a problem has a single neck, it has a simple solution. */ > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Lou Losee > Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2020 14:38 > > Would you rather code the select as a series of nested if-then-else? > > --- On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 1:35 PM Bob Bridges <robhbrid...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > The only language I can think of off-hand that doesn't require some sort > > of END to close a DO (I'm sure there are others) is ISPF. But, in REXX > at > > least, I never use single-statement DOs. I see them all the time, and I > > don't get it. Like this: > > > > if x=0 then do > > x=x+1 > > end > > > > Or, more painfully: > > > > select > > when idx="T" then > > do > > countt=countt+1 > > end > > when idx="U" then > > do > > countu=countu+1 > > end > > when idx="V" then > > do > > countv=countv+1 > > end > > when idx="W" then > > do > > countw=countw+1 > > end > > otherwise > > do > > countx=countx+1 > > end > > end > > > > Why? If it were easier to read, I might sympathize. But it's harder, > not > > easier. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > > Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin > > Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2020 14:40 > > > > But in Rexx similarly, END is required even for a single-statement DO. > > Good for Rexx. I like strong closure. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Wayne V. Bickerdike ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
