Re: Another ILE question : CONST vs VALUE -- RPG400-L

Subject: Re: Another ILE question : CONST vs VALUE
From: Ken Sims <mdrg6315@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 20:50:15 -0700
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l>
List-help: <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries <rpg400-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:rpg400-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Tommy -

On Mon, 7 May 2007 16:19:55 -0500, "Holden Tommy"
<Tommy.Holden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I would prefer the mismatch be caught at compilation time opposed to
runtime...head 'em off at the pass...

That's why I agree with those who think it is an excellent idea to put
all prototypes in /copy members and for both the callers and the
called subprocedure to use the same prototype /copy member.
(Personally I have one /copy member per service program.)

Of course it's still possible to shoot yourself in the foot by
changing a /copy member in a significant way and not recompiling all
affected programs.

Ken
http://www.kensims.net/
Opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent the views
of my employer or anyone in their right mind.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.