Re: Signature violations

[Buck <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx>]

> the problem with assigning a signature is if you ever remove a
> procedure from the binding source, or insert a new one ( in
> alphabetical order ) you will have all sorts of problems. 

Right, but what is the business case for rearranging the exports in the 
binder language?  You can sort them in any order you wish in the RPG 
source...

> ILE was implemented back in the day when the CPU was a lot slower and
> more expensive than what you get on the p5 today.  Whatever methods
> java and .net use to find the method being called is no doubt more cpu
> intensive, but it is a lot easier on the programmer.

Well, I can tell you that overloading in Java had me pulling out my hair 
when I was inadvertently calling the wrong method because I had the 
parameter types wrong.  A new paradigm always calls for some adaptation.

> RPG programmers are faulted all the time for not adopting ILE.  which
> I think is unfair because there are a few extra steps you have to
> learn, steps which the OS could easily be handling automatically.

In the context of signature violations, there is only the step of 
copying existing exports to the top of the binder language and changing 
the (now previous) signature to *PRV.  Yes, it's an extra step.  No, 
it's not remotely difficult to understand or perform in my opinion.