|
Hans, >So todays questions are: Would you take advantage of this if >available? Would you still use KLISTs? I too would *much* prefer this syntax to KLISTS, and as far as I am concerned, would eliminate the need for allowing KLIST definitions in D-specs. I think this is a much more readable (and therefore maintainable) method than KLISTS, which have always bothered me as one of RPG's limitations. I had even toyed with a similar syntax when testing moving I/O to prototyped subprocedures. For Chains, I allowed a variable number of parameters and selected a KLIST based on the number of fields passed. It still allowed me to use expressions etc for the field value(s). You're terrific Hans! Boy I wish we had this kind of response when the early decisions were being made on RPG IV design. Better late than never. RPG may become my favorite language again yet. Doug * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This is the RPG/400 Discussion Mailing List! To submit a new * * message, send your mail to "RPG400-L@midrange.com". To unsubscribe * * from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify * * 'unsubscribe RPG400-L' in the body of your message. Questions should * * be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.