× 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.


  • Subject: RE: CF-Spec - another call for opinions
  • From: "John Taylor" <john.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:20:04 -0600
  • Importance: Normal

Hi Doug,

> Not a mass conversion.  Just a mass recompile.
> Have you ever changed a record format of a file that is widely used
> numerous applications?  Do you use level checks?  Do you recompile
> programs which use the file?

You're usually three steps ahead of me at any given point Doug, so what am I
missing here? Let me clarify what I see, and please correct me where I'm
wrong.

How would a mass recompile of existing RPG 3/4 source be affected by a new
syntax?

1) RPG III source would only be affected if a field name was changed. This
can be avoided easily. Don't change the field name to conform to the new
syntax. Use PREFIX instead.

2) RPG IV field name conflict. As already mentioned, use PREFIX.

3) RPG IV procedure name conflict. If it is an internal or statically bound
procedure, a good search & replace utility will do the job in no time. For
service programs, if the procedure name cannot be easily changed, then we
can create a proxy stub for use by the new CF code.

4) RPG IV variable name conflict. This is the same problem we've been
dealing with in other languages for years. The actual fact of the matter is
that it is rarely ever an issue. In fact, I don't remember ever being
affecting by it in the 10 years that I've been writing code.

> If Hans & Co cannot automagically determine the intended usage from
> the context in an unambiguous manner (which *I thknk* should be doable
> except where I described in earlier posts), then you have the
> potential for a recompile to fail.

I agree with you completely on this. If it can be done this way, then it
should be.

> It also won't be an issue except in CF specs, so Bob will never have
> to worry about it anyway.  In fact, he can't even mention it in his
> book or classes since he refuses to mention CF there ... <g>

Precisely. It's a new syntax. Therefore, it should only be a concern with
respect to new code. If you're writing fresh code, you have the opportunity
to re-think your naming standards at that time.


John

+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---END



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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.