Re: Callp question

Dave

This looks a little like using another layer of abstraction - a
technique to simplify interfaces and hide complexities of underlying
APIs. It does seem a little like too much abstraction, perhaps. I think
I agree that a simple single parameter is not any harder for callers
than a parameter that is one of 3 constants for the "way" - something
like this -

DoStuff(ThisWay);
DoStuff(TheOtherWay);
DoStuff(TheOldWay);

Is the person asking somehow against using parameters? Don't they like
how commands work? Who would want separate commands for DSPFD2FILE and
DSPFD2PRT and DSPFD2DSP - 3 forms of output for the DSPFD command.

This gets out of hand easily - if they don't want parameters, then if
there are 3 values in 1 parameter, OK, not so bad. But when you add a
second parameter, with 2 values, you now have 6 procedures. It's all
multiplication, which get unwieldy almost immediately.

Just my thoughts early on a Monday!

Vern

On 8/6/2012 6:49 AM, Dave wrote:

Hi,


I'm being asked to do this :

DoStuffThisWay ();

DoStuffTheOtherWay ();

DoStuffTheOldWay()

Instead of having : DoStuff (wayToDoStuff); So that the caller does
not care about the parameter.

Then, in the module containing my 3 procedures :

P DoStuffThisWay

DoStuff(1);

DoStuffTheOtherWay

DoStuff(2);


Etc.

Obviously,this means maintaining more procedures and duplicating code.
I was wondering about procedure pointers. Could that help? How? Any
other ideas?

Thanks.

--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.