Barbara,
I have used a similar function in the past (using the "optional"
parameter name in the CHGVAR FROM rather than the TO variable), and I
was unaware of the fact that false positives could occur. I suppose if
there were a limited number of acceptable values for the parameter that
you could check against then the chances of "accidentally" finding ones
of these in a "phantom" parameter would be negligible. But in cases
where the parameter values could be a large number of values it seems
from this thread that IBM gives us NO 100% reliable way of determining
the number of parameters passed to a CL program. Is that so?
Thanks,
Trevor Briggs
Analyst/Programmer
Lincare, Inc.
(727) 431-1246
TBriggs2@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barbara Morris
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 7:31 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: optional parm in CLLE
On 1/24/2014 8:29 AM, Alan Cassidy wrote:
I just did this:
CHGVAR&VALUE3&PARAMETER3
MONMSG MCH3601 EXEC(DO)
SNDPGMMSG MSG( 'Did not receive 3 parameters') TOPGMQ(*EXT)
ENDDO
ENDPGM
Worked at least.
I just want to make sure that it's clear that this technique should
absolutely never be used.
It often seems to work in testing, but it's almost guaranteed to give a
false positive at some point, indicating that a parameter was passed
when it wasn't.
What's especially bad about this technique is that if your program
modifies a parameter that was not actually passed, you can cause bizarre
and unpredictable errors that might show up long after your program has
returned.
midrange.com
