RE: CEETSTA API

[Scott Klement <klemscot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Bartell, Aaron L. (TC) wrote:

> Ah.  Yes that example makes much more sense.  This is just my opinion, but I
> would make separate sub procs with a small variation in the name.
>

I don't see how that solves the problem?   Unless you wanted to write the
same code twice, that is.

> <<Aaron begins to dream of the day when RPG gets overloading and overriding
> sub procs>>
>
> I will have a party at my place when that day comes;-)

I won't.  I don't like overloading.  I think it's confusing when the
compiler gives you an error "procedure not found" and the reason turns out
to be that one of your variables is a "short" and the procedure was
expecting an "int".   That's not intuitive.

I don't like it when I search a program for a procedure called "GetCust"
fix a bug in it, and it has no effect because there's more than one
procedure called GetCust.

I don't like having to specify a "mangled" name when creating binder
source, or when using %paddr().

The problems of overloading far outweight the minor difficulties of making
procedure names like "GetCustByName" instead of "GetCustByNumber"