Nope, I never use "@". Everything at every shop were I had any say over the
standards was done exactly as you describe. First an explicit list then use
the "*" for current list.

Works too. One of the systems I am currently looking after has over 400
Cobol programs. I change databases to fulfill new requirements all the time.
Never have to waste time recompiling hundreds of programs.

As far as I am concerned, there is never any good reason to use "@". List
processing overhead? If done as described so the lists are only processed
once, I have never noticed any significant impact in list processing.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Murray" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 9:17 PM
Subject: [HP3000-L] Using the "@" list in TurboIMAGE


> [My apologies if this is a duplicate for some readers.  I had trouble last
> week with some of my postings not making the jump through the gateway to
> 3000-L.]
>
> When I learned IMAGE yea many years ago, I got the notion that the right
way
> to call DBGET and related procedures was with an explicit list parameter
> specifying the particular items of interest.  If I was concerned with the
> overhead of processing such a list, I could establish a "current list",
> typically by doing a directed read to record 0 (which I knew would return
> condition 12) and using "*;" in subsequent calls.  The theory was that, if
> there were structural changes to the database, such as new items added to
> the dataset, it would not be necessary to change and recompile any
programs
> that did not use the new items.
>
> In practice, however, it seems as though everybody just uses "@;" all the
> time.  The buffer layout gets put into a COPY library.  If items are added
> or modified, you have to track down every program that uses that dataset
> and, at a minimum, recompile it.  If you miss one, mysterious things
happen,
> as when the program's buffer becomes too short for the newly enlarged
> dataset layout.
>
> Am I correct in my belief, based on admittedly limited observation, that
> practically everybody always uses an "@;" list?  If so, is there any good
> reason for this?  Is "@;" faster than "*;"?  If so, why?  And is it enough
> faster to justify the risk and inconvenience of having to recompile many
> programs whenever a minor structural database change is made?  Or am I
> missing something more significant?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Walter
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *