Re: Why RNF5410 for undefined variable in prototype call?

Barbara,

Yeah, I wasn't sure about that either.

Of course, if command is a varying string, then you're better off,
especially if you're 'building' the command, since you can just pass the
current length without the need for a %trim.

I just assumed that the underlying processing QCMDEXC was at least as good
as an RPG %trim, but perhaps not. I don't know what type of program QCMDEXC
is - it's surely not just a CL?

Rory

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Barbara Morris <bmorris@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rory Hewitt wrote:

BTW, you don't need to use %trim for the second parameter to QCMDEXC -

you

can simply pass this:

execcmd(command:%len(command));

It doesn't make much difference, but it probably saves a CPU cycle or

two,

and those unnecessary %trims add up over time. Plus, it makes your code
slightly simpler to read...

I agree about simpler to read.

But I wonder about saving CPU cycles and unnecessary %trims. If you
don't use %trim to get the length, then you just move the processing of
the trailing blanks to the CL command processor. Probably makes no
difference, although it somehow feels like it's more complex for the
command processor to handle trailing blanks. I have no idea how the
command parsing works, maybe it even trims before it starts. But if it
just chugs through the entire input string, it might do a bit more work
for each character than %trim does. For instance, when it finds a
blank, it may have to also check whether it's processing a literal
before it decides whether to ignore the blank or not.