Re: declaring a file local to a sub-procedure

Yes, as discussed a lot of times, being able to pass the file would be
hugely beneficial to "simplify" a lot of code. Anybody heard anything
about this being supported any time in the near future?


Thanks
Bryce Martin
Programmer/Analyst I
570-546-4777



Jon Paris <jon.paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
09/29/2009 06:00 PM
Please respond to
RPG programming on the IBM i / System i <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
cc

Subject
Re: declaring a file local to a sub-procedure






Nope - nothing special. Which is why using STATIC for the file is
probably a good idea if the recursive capabilities are not needed.

In many cases I think the ability to pass a file in as a parm to a
subprocedure or program will be more useful for generic routines than
being able to have the file local to the subproc.


Jon Paris

www.Partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com



On 29-Sep-09, at 2:19 PM, rpg400-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

This now brings up an additional question, since this works along
the same
way as a USROPN, how much additional overhead does this generate? I
mean,
if you include a file locally to a procedure and that procedure is
invoked
for every order, the overhead for opening and closing that file
could be
huge.....

Or does IBM preload the file so the overhead is lower on subsequent
opens?