Albert, Why not prototype the PLIST and use keyword VARYING. The first two bytes would pass the actual length of the data value passed. Or am I mistaken here? Regards, Carel Teijgeler. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 18-9-03 at 9:44 York, Albert wrote: >Thanks Scott. > >As always, you have left a broad swath of enlightenment in your wake. :-) > >For reasons I won't go into, I don't want to add a field for length. >However, I can prefix the data with a type code, which will tell me what I >need to know. > > >Albert York > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Klement [SMTP:klemscot@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 9:26 AM > To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion > Subject: RE: Finding the length of a passed parameter > > > > > However, I am writing a program which will accept a variable >number of > > parameters of different length. I can easily find out how many >parameters > > were passed but I am looking for a way to find out how long each >one is. In > > my program I can allow for the maximum length and subscript as >needed. > > > > The programs are, in a way, talking to each other when they send > parameters. One program is telling the next program "I'm passing 3 > parameters, and they are (address) (address) (address)" > > Programs don't tell each other the lengths. They also don't tell >each > other the data types. They just give a number of parameters and an > address in memory. That's it. > > Therefore there's no way to retrieve the length, aside from having >the > calling program pass that length as an additional parameter. >That's why > APIs frequently will have both "data" and "length" parameters. >QCMDEXC > is a simple example, the first parm is the command, the second is >the > length. > > Now, IBM could enhance the operating system... perhaps adding a new > parameter to the call command such as SNDLEN(*YES) to tell the call >to > send the lengths of each parameter. But, each program that wanted >to > use it would have to be changed to specify that SNDLEN(*YES). It >couldn't > be changed universally without breaking backwards compatibility. > Of course, all this would really do is add "hidden" parameters that > contain the length of each of the "visible" parameters. > > Since you'd have to change the calling program anyway, you may as >well > just add parameters containing the lengths. That way, you can >solve > your problems today. > > Hope that helps you understand (even if it doesn't solve your >problem) > > _______________________________________________ > This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) >mailing list > To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l > or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l. >_______________________________________________ >This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list >To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx >To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, >visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l >or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx >Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives >at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2013 by MIDRANGE dot 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 here. If you have questions about this, please contact