Re: Ltext / Ctext + new questions
Your correct Michael, it really is a matter of personal philosophy. I prefer
explicitly nominating the global symbols that must be global, rather than
calling everything global on the off chance that one day they might be
needed as global.
Also, file-level variables being modified by subroutines has nothing to do
with OOP. It is still bad programming practice (IMHO) in OOP programs too.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Sabal.Mike at notations.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: Re: Ltext / Ctext + new questions
I disagree slightly with this comment. The use of global for variables
created at the top of a program, even though it has no effect on scope,
tells me that that particular variable set serves a 'master data set'
purpose and will be 'rudely' modified by subroutines. It used to be
considered bad programming practice to modify file-level variables without
passing them into and out of subroutines. But OOP has changed that
convention. <voice of experience>It's also good practice when doing modular
programming, because you may suddenly decide that a stand-alone program is
now going to be included as part of a larger set; and then you have to go
back and find all those file-level variables that the parent program now
needs access to....</voice>
Call this rant a flashback from Pascal days -- and 3rd revisions 
.
Michael J. Sabal
>>> ddparnell at bigpond.com 09/20/01 04:36PM >>>
The use of Global in code that is never included is a waste of
effort because it does nothing. You only need Global if you expect to have
another program include your file and you what that other program to "see"
the constant/variable/routine.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
