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.
