Re: Identifying where *modules are used

["Charles Wilt" <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>]

Scott,

My bad, typed before I thought....blame it on a long night due to a
sick baby, who just had to wake her big 9yyo) brother with her cry's.
<grin>

You are of course correct, CALLB would still work with the procedures
in a service program.

Charles

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Scott Klement
<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> > Had you been using CALLP,  moving a given module to a *SRVPGM  would
> > simply be a matter of recreating the program that was making use of
> > it, no other code changes needed.  (Well you might add an h-spec with
> > the binding directory )
>
> I certainly agree that CALLP (or EVAL or free format, or any of the
> myriad other ways to use a prototype) is a better choice, but...
>
> I don't understand why you think CALLP would be easier to transition to
> the srvpgm than CALLB is. Why couldn't he re-create the code (leaving
> the CALLB) and get the exact same result?
>
> I mean... the binding part is exactly the same whether you use CALLB or
> a prototype.  The advantage to the prototypes come from additional
> capabilities, better syntax checking, etc.  But that's all done at
> compile time.  The binding part is exactly the same, so referencing a
> binding directory to call a *SRVPGM instead of a *MODULE is exactly the
> same with CALLB as it would've been with a prototype.
>
> Why do you say that using CALLB maikes it harder?
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.