Robert Covington wrote:

> >> Negative points for anyone who posts code that doesn't have DIM'ed vars
> >>or Call Required. Them's is the FB 3 defaults, and the list benefits when
> >>code conforms to that. That means me, because I don't go running just to
> >>be DIM. :)
> >
> >Let me discuss that point.
> <snip>
> >Perhaps I have missed something important here, but could you tell me why
> >you check that option on, knowing that you can still run your progs with
> >CALLs everywhere in your source code even when that option is off?
>
> You talking to me? You's talking to me? or Staz? :)
>

Hi Robert,
Yes and no. This is a real question I have for all the listees who post
snippets of code.

>
> I just leave it on. I haven't ever worried about it that much. The Staz
> spec for submitted code examples is for them to include Call, that is one
> reason.

I have a problem with that specific spec.
I have also my own reference on that topic: we have in France a very old
cartoon that was broadcasted on the TV in the sixties which is called The
Shaddocks. The Shaddocks are beings whose slogan is "why make it easy when we
can make it difficult?".
This cartoon split the French in two opposite parts, some used to think that
this kind of things should be forbidden on the French TV (the cartoon was too
much surrealistic with a lot of non sense for straight thinking people) while
others used to see in it a crude pamphlet of the whole society (so for them it
was more a matter of public health).
So, my question is indeed: why make the code more cumbersome that it needs to
be?

>
>
> Didn't mean for you to feel singled out, but could see how you might feel
> that way.
>
> You raise some good points, but them's for Staz Software to iron out.
> "CALL" him collect. :) (I see now where RP has transferred the thread over
> to the Beta list)
>

OK. Let's say that this is a question I would have liked to ask for a long
time.
Because I'm selling FB on this side of the Atlantic, I feel that one of my
goals is to show (if I can do it) how FB is powerful and easy to understand
and to use, promoting its new features every time it is possible. It happens
that in my eyes the CALL omission associated with the type suffix omission for
variables is a real enhancement in the reading of code (the code is far less
cluttered therefore far easier to follow).
I think this is important to display neat code especially in regards to those
who come here just to see how coding with FB looks like.

>
> Anyway, if I upset you, accept my apologies. I like the CALL being there
> myself because it reminds me I am reaching into the external toolbox bag of
> tricks.
>

I'm not upset and you don't have to apologize, in fact I can run any code with
the CALL keyword without a single problem. It is just a bit irritating when it
comes to projects that change my settings.

>
> Plus when you read or write the code outside the editor, it is easier to
> distinguish them then too. Maybe I am just used to them.
>

I have my own answer about this, but I believe it is not easy to share (cf. my
post in the Beta list).

>
> This mean you don't want your points anymore?
>

You talking to me? You's talking to me?

Cheers

Alain