SCREEN I\O q?

[Joel J.J. Heber]

What is more efficient and easier to work with.

a) Frames and stuff values in the variables.

b) Use a multitude of Display statements.

HMMMMM.....anyone ever do this....

 

[tsspdx]

This is not an either/or.

The DISPLAY statement uses frames. If you don't explicitly define and name the frames, then it uses implicit ones. So your question really is, is it better to use

a) explicitly defined frames
b) implicitly defined frames

It just depends on whether you need to reference and manipulate the frame, or whether named frames aid in code clarity. Since frames are constructed at compile-time, I don't think there are any efficiency concerns.

 

[Ric]

You asked

What is more efficient and easier to work with.

a) Frames and stuff values in the variables.

b) Use a multitude of Display statements.

HMMMMM.....anyone ever do this....

Did you mean

DEFINE FRAME xyz
tgPPBLifeAss AT ROW 5.29 COL 10
tgPPBPlan AT ROW 5.29 COL 30
btnExportPath AT ROW 6.95 COL 90
btnRun AT ROW 9.1 COL 56
btnCancel AT ROW 9.1 COL 79
"Actuarial Report Extract" VIEW-AS TEXT
SIZE 93 BY 1.67 AT ROW 1.48 COL 4
BGCOLOR 18 FGCOLOR 19 FONT 10
"Extract Type Selection" VIEW-AS TEXT
SIZE 23 BY .95 AT ROW 4.33 COL 6
WITH 1 DOWN NO-BOX KEEP-TAB-ORDER OVERLAY
SIDE-LABELS NO-UNDERLINE THREE-D
AT COL 1 ROW 1
SIZE 98 BY 10.52.

...

...

display
tgPPBLifeAss
tgPPBPlan
with frame xyz.

...

enable
btnExportPath
btnRun
btnCancel
with frame xyz.


as opposed to

display
"Actuarial Report Extract" VIEW-AS TEXT
SIZE 93 BY 1.67 AT ROW 1.48 COL 4
BGCOLOR 18 FGCOLOR 19 FONT 10
"Extract Type Selection" VIEW-AS TEXT
SIZE 23 BY .95 AT ROW 4.33 COL 6
WITH 1 DOWN NO-BOX KEEP-TAB-ORDER OVERLAY
SIDE-LABELS NO-UNDERLINE THREE-D
AT COL 1 ROW 1
SIZE 98 BY 10.52
frame xyz.

...

display
tgPPBLifeAss AT ROW 5.29 COL 10
tgPPBPlan AT ROW 5.29 COL 30
with frame xyz.

...

enable
btnExportPath AT ROW 6.95 COL 90
btnRun AT ROW 9.1 COL 56
btnCancel AT ROW 9.1 COL 79
with frame xyz.

The former allows the frame definition to be set in one place and therefore easier to maintain.

The second doesn't.

I prefer to use the first method.

I dont think efficiency of code comes into the equation

 

[Joel J.J. Heber]

THANKS, GUYS!

THX.....:clown: