Jim Phillips writes: > Well, what do you think? Maybe this isn't recursion at all? But > the perform chain looks like this: > > S141 -> S144 -> S141 > > That looks like recursion to me. (I tend to think of this as "circular calls" rather than recursion, but that may be just me.) I verified that this calling sequence (A->B->A) is supported without warning of any kind, and it works just fine. Tail recursion says RECURSIVE PERFORM with "Q"uestionable severity. Linking, however, results in a runnable program that works fine. > I went ahead and coded the program without recursion > (it's clearer that way), but I still would like to > know if I could have done it differently. So, from an academic standpoint, you *could* have done it differently, but I think we would all agree (in general) that "clearer is better." --Glenn Cole Software al dente, Inc. [log in to unmask] ....................................................................... Item Subject: cc:Mail Text