×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the explanation, I now see that the CALL command lacks *OMIT,
that makes sense that you'd want to add that to the CALL command.
I don't think adding EXTPGM makes much sense. Yes, it eliminates static
binding, but it does so by making it a program call (rather than a
procedure call), so it makes much more sense to use CALL ("call a
program") in that case rather than CALLPRC ("call a procedure").
Since adding *OMIT to CALL solves the issue, then I'd say it's a much
cleaner solution.
FWIW, it's possible to fake it out so that CALL does the equivalent of
*OMIT by passing a parameter that's based on pointer, and making sure
the pointer is set to *NULL. That is all that *OMIT does, under the covers.
-SK
On 3/20/18 9:39 AM, dlclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The benefit is that CALLPRC supports *OMIT while CALL does not.
Currently, yes. But that is what the addition of the EXTPGM
parameter is all about. It would remove the compile-time binding
requirement just like the RPG/ILE compiler does when the EXTPGM keyword is
specified in a prototype.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
