[AccessD] Naming Conventions - GOSUB = CALL?

No.
GOSUB redirects program execution to a label in the same procedure.
CALL redirects it to another procedure entirely.

In older versions of BASIC (e.g. the one that shipped with my good ol'
64), GOSUB jumped to another line in the program with the expectation
that it would eventually encounter a RETURN statement to bring it back
to the original routine.

GOSUB is acceptable from a structured programming standpoint, but not
widely used in VB(A) (don't know why, but it's obviously not a popular
keyword and has been removed from VB.NET).

Nothing wrong with the CALL keyword (although it has also been
discontinued in VB.NET since all procedures are called with
parentheses).


-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Rocky Smolin
- Beach Access Software
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 10:43 AM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Naming Conventions - GOSUB = CALL?

Is GOSUB the same As CALL in VBA?  I CALL a lot of subroutines.

(I know I can drop the CALL but it reads more clearer when I use it.  )

Is this bad form?

Rocky

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Lawrence (AccessD)" <accessd at shaw.ca>
To: "Access Developers discussion and problem solving"
<accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Naming Conventions


> Hi Brett:
>
> I must admit I never read anything directly actual panning GOSUBS and
I
can
> see you point about them being similar to function/subroutine calls.
In
the
> older coding environments there were little flexibility when it came
to
> selection.
>
> Dijkstra's main emphasis was on pushing for structured coding. With
the
> creation of structured languages came all the amenities and designing
> choices that we, as developers enjoy today. He did not condemn use of
> particular code statements but rather, he encouraged the development
of
> structured development languages.
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Brett
Barabash
> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 9:11 AM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: RE: [AccessD] Naming Conventions
>
>
> Jim,
> Are you sure that Dijkstra actually condemned GOSUB statements?
> Practically everyone in the computer science community knows about his
> groundbreaking "GOTO statements considered harmful" paper, but I have
> never heard this applied to GOSUBs.
>
> In some older BASIC languages, a GOSUB statement was used in a similar
> manner to CALL, in that it would execute a separate subroutine, and
> return to the exact same point in the calling routine when complete.
> This concept is directly in line with the tenets of structured
> programming, and IMHO a vital tool for modularizing code into
manageable
> blocks.  Contrast this with the "evil" GOTO statement, which allowed
one
> to jump mindlessly from procedure to procedure, with no specific rule
as
> to where code execution resumed.  Spaghetti code, anyone?
>
> Now here's the part of the message where I'll probably stir up a
> pointless debate.  I have used GOSUB statements for years in my
> AccessBasic, VB and VBA code, and only recently stopped doing so
because
> the outdated syntax is confusing to someone unfamiliar with its use.
>
> I personally try to avoid global variables (another debate in itself),
> and limit the use of modular variables.  In routines using several
> procedure-level variables, breaking an unwieldy procedure into smaller
> ones involves passing multiple arguments to the child routines.  A
> possible alternative is to break code blocks into separate sections of
> the same routine and call it with GoSub.  Not only do you have the
> benefit of sharing all of your procedure level variables, but the code
> is kept bundled with your main sub.
>
> I found this approach to be elegant and useful.  Many people would pan
> it as clunky, outdated, and even arcane.  Eventually I stopped doing
it
> mainly for the benefit of others who have to maintain my code.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Lawrence
> (AccessD)
> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 3:29 AM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: RE: [AccessD] Naming Conventions
>
> John:
>
> You might find this article, about the man who spent a major portion
of
> his life condemning the GOTO and GOSUB commands, interesting. Quote:
He
> was famously the leader in the abolition of the GOTO statement from
> programming.
>
> http://reference.creativesystemdesigns.com/miscellaneous.html#edsger
>
> Jim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information in this email may contain confidential information that 
is legally privileged. The information is only for the use of the intended 
recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you 
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking 
of any action in regard to the content of this email is strictly prohibited.  If 
transmission is incorrect, unclear, or incomplete, please notify the sender 
immediately. The authorized recipient(s) of this information is/are prohibited 
from disclosing this information to any other party and is/are required to 
destroy the information after its stated need has been fulfilled.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority,
states them to be the views of Tappe Construction Co.

This footer also confirms that this email message has been scanned
for the presence of computer viruses.Scanning of this message and
addition of this footer is performed by SurfControl E-mail Filter software
in conjunction with virus detection software.