Re: Because it's there... (Was: Printer Overflow and BIF's)

[rob@xxxxxxxxx]

Yes the substring is clearer.

Af first I thought you were going to complain that the *ENTRY was obsolete.
Because it is.  If you use a Procedure Interface then perhaps people may be
more inclined to use the prototyped calls to the program also.

Rob Berendt

==================
Remember the Cole!


                                                                                
                                          
                    Jim Langston                                                
                                          
                    <jimlangston@conexfr        To:     RPG400-L@midrange.com   
                                          
                    eight.com>                  cc:                             
                                          
                    Sent by:                    Subject:     Re: Because it's 
there... (Was: Printer Overflow and BIF's)  
                    owner-rpg400-l@midra                                        
                                          
                    nge.com                                                     
                                          
                                                                                
                                          
                                                                                
                                          
                    05/02/01 11:11 AM                                           
                                          
                    Please respond to                                           
                                          
                    RPG400-L                                                    
                                          
                                                                                
                                          
                                                                                
                                          




I know what you mean, Jim.

I use new techniques in all my programs because I can, then I have to
decide if they make for better programming or not.  I guess, to paraphrase
an explorer who climbed Everest and I forget his name, because they're
there.

I wrote a program lately that this list helped me on, dealing with
subfiles,
all in RPG IV (was no need to do any linking in this one) with
subprocedures
instead of subroutines, all variables declared in the D specs, the only
MOVE
statements having to do with validating dates, etc...

Then I got a call that my program was "broken".  Giving a pointer error
when
it started.  No way.  I run the program, pointer error.  Run it in debug,
it's
now expecting entry parms which I didn't code.  I find out that some other
program in another site wanted to call this program with the invoice number
to
display.  So I looked at the changes she had made.

D              DS
D inv#                1     8
D inv2                2     8

C     *entry   plist
C              parm          #inv#      8

C              move  #inv#   inv#
C              movel inv2#   DFInv

Blech!  You take my nice RPG IV program and stick this RPG II/PRG III junk
into
it?  So I changed it.

D ParmInv#                 8A

C     *Entry  PList
C             Parm        ParmInv#

C             Eval        DFInv# = %SubSt(ParmInv#: 2: 7)

then I fix it and the calling CL and, surprise surprise, I test it!

Everything worked and everyone was happy, especially me knowing my code was
"clean" again.

Would this bug anyone else, or was this just a bee in my bonnet?

Regards,

Jim Langston

Me transmitte sursum, Caledoni!

> "Sneddon, Jim" wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> I'm sorry - I forgot that little detail.
>
> It is an externally described printer file.
>
> It works (of course) by using an OFLIND(*IN55) and then watching for
*in55.  I was not able to get it to work by using the %error method and it
won't let you specify something like OFIND(%ERROR)...  I did not think of
setting an OFLIND and then watching for %error but I doubt it will work -
I'll give it a try just for grins.
>
> So it works with the old method and everyone is happy (as happy as
end-users will ever be)  but I was just curious if I could take advantage
of some new method using the BIF's instead.
>
> Thanks
>
> >Printer Overflow and BIF's
+---
| 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
+---



+---
| 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
+---