RE: Procedures within procedures?

["Dennis Lovelady" <iseries@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> The things not defined seem to be fields in some standard /copy members
> for standard fields and the procedure prototypes.  Perhaps I do not
> understand the sequence of source records.  My latest try is as
> follows:

If your prototypes are dependent upon external data (meaning data not
defined within the prototype itself) then either:
  > the prototype is defined poorly and needs to be improved, or
  > the copy code that defines such data should also be included (perhaps by
the prototype itself), or
  > both

For example, if you have my_account_field referenced within a prototype,
then there should be a definition within the prototype, or within a copy
member that's pulled in by the prototype.

Probably the issue is the latter.

Dennis Lovelady
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dennislovelady
--
Never argue with a fool, because passers-by cannot tell you apart.