To "call" or not to "call"

**Aaron Bertrand - MVP** · Jul 19 '05, 12:22 PM

Re: To "call&quot ; or not to "call&quot ;

It's just different syntax and allows you to use parens around your
parameters, if you like that style. See http://www.aspfaq.com/2115

You can see the impact on ByRef/ByVal in http://www.aspfaq.com/2488

Neither is "better" IMHO, so I'm not sure what you're after.

--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP

http://www.aspfaq.com/

"William Morris" <news.remove.th is.and.the.dots @seamlyne.com> wrote in
message news:2h46b8F8uk 3aU1@uni-berlin.de...[color=blue]
> So, what's the prevailing opinion regarding the use of the "CALL" keyword?
> I'm working with a third-party ASP application, adapting for our system,[/color]
and[color=blue]
> the CALL keyword is used everywhere. I've never used it, preferring[/color]
instead[color=blue]
> to just type the procedure name and parameters so:
>
> myProcedure parm1, parm2
>
> Any thoughts on
>
> call myProcedure(par m1, parm2)
>
> ..?
>
>
> --
> William Morris
> Product Development, Seritas LLC
> Kansas City, Missouri
>
>[/color]

**William Morris** · Jul 19 '05, 12:22 PM

Re: To "call&quot ; or not to "call&quot ;

"Aaron Bertrand - MVP" <aaron@TRASHasp faq.com> wrote in message
news:enxFIzoPEH A.3988@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> It's just different syntax and allows you to use parens around your
> parameters, if you like that style. See http://www.aspfaq.com/2115
>
> You can see the impact on ByRef/ByVal in http://www.aspfaq.com/2488
>
> Neither is "better" IMHO, so I'm not sure what you're after.
>
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.aspfaq.com/[/color]

Not really "after" anything much except opinions. Thanks, Aaron.

--
William Morris
Product Development, Seritas LLC
Kansas City, Missouri

**Aaron Bertrand - MVP** · Jul 19 '05, 12:22 PM

Re: To "call&quot ; or not to "call&quot ;

> Not really "after" anything much except opinions. Thanks, Aaron.

Well, my point was that I don't know what you mean by "better"... faster,
more accurate, less code, more common...

**William Morris** · Jul 19 '05, 12:22 PM

Re: To "call&quot ; or not to "call&quot ;

Hey hey hey...I didn't say "better." But, if I had to pose my question more
specifically, I guess I was asking what's more common. If there just
happened to be something about the way the parser handles it differently,
I'd accept that too, but it was really just a request for opinions.

"Aaron Bertrand - MVP" <aaron@TRASHasp faq.com> wrote in message
news:uF8d2ApPEH A.3216@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
> > Not really "after" anything much except opinions. Thanks, Aaron.[/color]
>
> Well, my point was that I don't know what you mean by "better"... faster,
> more accurate, less code, more common...
>
>[/color]

**Ray at** · Jul 19 '05, 12:22 PM

Re: To "call&quot ; or not to "call&quot ;

I always use Call subName. I like seeing Call, because it's much more
obvious as to what's going on than just seeing some random work sitting
there by itself. I also like to use parentheses.

Call theThing(arg1, arg2)

theThing arg1, arg2

The former looks much better imo.

Ray at work

"William Morris" <news.remove.th is.and.the.dots @seamlyne.com> wrote in
message news:2h49pcF8h4 d3U1@uni-berlin.de...[color=blue]
> Hey hey hey...I didn't say "better." But, if I had to pose my question[/color]
more[color=blue]
> specifically, I guess I was asking what's more common. If there just
> happened to be something about the way the parser handles it differently,
> I'd accept that too, but it was really just a request for opinions.
>
>
> "Aaron Bertrand - MVP" <aaron@TRASHasp faq.com> wrote in message
> news:uF8d2ApPEH A.3216@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > Not really "after" anything much except opinions. Thanks, Aaron.[/color]
> >
> > Well, my point was that I don't know what you mean by "better"...[/color][/color]
faster,[color=blue][color=green]
> > more accurate, less code, more common...
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

**Roland Hall** · Jul 19 '05, 12:22 PM

Re: To "call&quot ; or not to "call&quot ;

"William Morris" wrote in message news:2h46b8F8uk 3aU1@uni-berlin.de...
: So, what's the prevailing opinion regarding the use of the "CALL" keyword?
: I'm working with a third-party ASP application, adapting for our system,
and
: the CALL keyword is used everywhere. I've never used it, preferring
instead
: to just type the procedure name and parameters so:
:
: myProcedure parm1, parm2
:
: Any thoughts on
:
: call myProcedure(par m1, parm2)
:
: ..?

I never use call unless I'm on my cell phone or unless I'm replying in
response to a NG post where someone has it in their code.

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp

**Dave Anderson** · Jul 19 '05, 12:22 PM

Re: To "call&quot ; or not to "call&quot ;

William Morris wrote:[color=blue]
> So, what's the prevailing opinion regarding the use of the "CALL"
> keyword?[/color]

I don't know about prevailing opinions, but I personally prefer it. It
simply makes the code more readable, IMO.

Then again, I use correct capitalization and parentheses for logic when I
write VBScript, so I'm a bit of a kook.

FWIW, microsoft.publi c.scripting.vbs cript might represent a better barometer
for this.

--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.

To "call" or not to "call"

To "call" or not to "call"

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment