Re: LCKW Problem

["Carsten Flensburg" <flensburg@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Dennis,

- And thanks for sharing your code too!

Well, it's partly due to the circumstance that I started coding APIs before
QSYSINC became an option and thus invented my own set of naming standards -
and partly due to the fact that I've run into some problems actually using
the library because of errors in the header files.

I also just checked the include file for the QWCRJBLK API and though it was
introduced just recently - V5R1- it still uses positional definition of the
structure subfields and defines numeric subfields as Binary instead of
Integer data type... - I prefer using the more recent options in both cases.

On the other hand - as I'm confronted with more and more C code and style -
I really start liking the idea of a general header file set to ease both the
use of APIs and functions and the maintainance of a global coding standard.
Speaking of RPG/IV I just don't think that QSYSINC - in general - has the
adequate level of quality yet.

Best regards,
Carsten Flensburg


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Lovelady" <dlovelady@dtcc.com>
To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: LCKW Problem


>
> Thanks for sharing that code, Carsten.  Yeah, that looks useful in the
> right places.  :)
>
> Not to fault your code (which, again, I do appreciate!), I'm curious why
> you don't use QSYSINC items for some of that stuff (like QUSEC, for
> example).  If it's because of variable data being left undefined (such as
> QUSED01), you might find the following useful:
>
>   *   PLEASE keep the next two lines TOGETHER!!!
>  D/Copy qsysinc/qrpglesrc,qusec
>  D QUSED01                     1024
>   *   PLEASE keep the previous two lines TOGETHER!!!
>