RE: CALLB vs.CALLP

If you use the c function 'system' you get two benefits: you don't need the
length and the command runs in the same activation group as the program
making the call.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Klement [SMTP:klemscot@klements.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 12:06 PM
> To:   'RPG400-L@midrange.com'
> Subject:      RE: CALLB vs.CALLP
> 
> 
> The problem I always have with using a subprocedure as a wrapper for
> QCMDEXC is the call level.   When I do an OVRDBF or similar command
> via my subprocedure, it doesn't work because its at a different call
> level.
> 
> Sure, I could do OVRSCOPE(*JOB)  but thats not a very elegant solution!
> 
> So, I usually do a prototype with a CONST parameter for the command and
> the length.  Then I can do something like this:
> 
> C               callp     Cmd('OVRDBF FILE(FILEONE) TOFILE(FILETWO)': 200)
> 
> I would certainly PREFER to not pass the length -- but havent found a good
> way.   What am I missing?
> 
+---
| 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
+---