Re: Wrapping a hashmap put method

[Pete Helgren <Pete@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for that Barbara.  I was thinking about taking that approach 
because I really don't need the return value.  I left it that way for my 
own clarity.

I could change it and document that the Java prototype needs the return 
value to avoid the signature violation but the RPG really doesn't need 
it, at least in the application.

Pete

Barbara Morris wrote:
> Pete Helgren wrote:
>   
> > ...
> > The reason I headed down the wrong path I did was that I had originally 
> > prototyped the return value of the method as void because of the way 
> > that I had used it in Java.  I had never seen a return value from a put 
> > method.  
> > ... 
> >   lMap = JMAP_put(peMap:peKey:peValue);
> >   return lMap;
> > ...
> >     
>
> Pete, you don't have to receive the return value from your RPG call. 
> You can ignore the return value by coding the call like this, just as 
> you sometimes do in Java:
>      JMAP_put(peMap:peKey:peValue);
>
> (This is irrelevant for your case now, since your RPG procedure does 
> need the return value from put() for its own return value, but I got the 
> impression that you originally didn't care about the put() return value.)
>
>
>