Re: What bugs you about KLISTs in RPG IV?

I most whole heartedly agree with this gentleman's request!!! Like I had
suggested before I would like to have variable numbers of parameters for a
function simular to the parameter handling capabilites of C for example the
printf command. Man would that make my life easier as a tool maker!

Thanks
Eric

______________________________________________
Eric N. Wilson
President
Doulos Software & Computer Services
2913 N Alder St
Tacoma WA 98407


----- Original Message -----
From: David Morris <dmorris@plumcreek.com>
To: <RPG400-L@midrange.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 9:16 AM
Subject: RE: What bugs you about KLISTs in RPG IV?


> Hans,
>
> Yes, I would take advantage of this if it were available.
> CHAIN support would be nice, but why restrict this to I/O?
> Doesn't it add a lot more flexibility if we could create our own
> CHAIN that had this functionality?  It is not possible to do this
> without some mechanism that supports varying format
> procedure parameters.
>
> My imagination may be overly enhanced by the rarified air
> here, but I would like to see the file be variable also.  If you
> supported this it would allow us to de-coupling server type
> procedures from applications.  I would also like to be able to
> create a COPYKEY or a DLTKEY or a GETDTAQ.  Until RPGIV
> supports typing of parameters I will need to do this myself
> which adds quite a bit of unnecessary work.
>
> David Morris
>
> >>> <boldt@ca.ibm.com> 06/15/99 07:50AM >>>
>
>
> Thanks for your input on this issue!
>
> Here's a bit more background:  We understand fully why people
> want to be able to define KLISTs in D-Specs.   However, while
> a KLIST does define a klist name, the key fields are somewhat
> awkward on the D-Spec.  For example, although you can  define
> fields on the KFLD opcode, you can also  code indexed arrays,
> which are not allowed today in positions 7-21 of the D-Spec.
>
> Someone raised the idea of a "KLIST Data Structure".  That is
> an interesting idea which I'll pursue further.   But, I don't
> think it would be able  to fully replace the functionality of
> of the KLIST.
>
> One person came close to another idea that we've been playing
> with here in the lab.  As you know, there are rumors floating
> around about a new free-format calc spec.  Let's assume for a
> moment  that these rumors are true.  This would give new ways
> to enhance old opcodes.  The main thing  that has bothered me
> about KLISTs is that they are necessary at all! If we weren't
> limited to 14 chars in Factor 1, we would be able to list the
> keys directly in the CHAIN opcode.  Imagine for a moment:
>
>      cf   chain (custno: acctno: date) mastfile
>
> or even:
>
>      cf  chain (prodno: 'X' + subcode(n+14)) mastfile
>
> In other words, full expressions coded directly as key fields
> for the keyed I/O operations!
>
> So todays questions are:  Would you take advantage of this if
> available?  Would you still use KLISTs?
>
> Cheers!  Hans
>
> Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.com
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * This is the RPG/400 Discussion Mailing List!  To submit a new         *
> * message, send your mail to "RPG400-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe   *
> * from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify       *
> * 'unsubscribe RPG400-L' in the body of your message.  Questions should *
> * be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com          *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the RPG/400 Discussion Mailing List!  To submit a new         *
* message, send your mail to "RPG400-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe   *
* from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify       *
* 'unsubscribe RPG400-L' in the body of your message.  Questions should *
* be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com          *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *