Re: PI to replaced *Entry PLIST (was Because it's there... )

I think that I would much prefer coming behind a programmer who used
callp  proc(p1:p2:*omit:*omit:*omit:*omit:x:*omit:*omit)
then one who used CallP Proc(p1:p2:p3:p4:p5:p6:x:p7:p8)
because now I have to determine which of these variables he is actually
using.  The first call, I know he's using p1, p2 and x.  The second
call, I have to search the code to figure out how s/he's using the call.

Regards,

Jim Langston

Me transmitte sursum, Caledoni!


bmorris@ca.ibm.com wrote:
> 
<SNIPPEDLY SNIP SNIP SNIP>
> Using *OMIT would be cleaner than passing and identifying dummy parameters,
> but it would lead to horritude like
>    callp  proc(p1:p2:*omit:*omit:*omit:*omit:x:*omit:*omit)
> which would be as awful as the OCL
>    // DOSOMETHING p1,,,,p2,,,,,,,p3
> 
> (You can't use *OMIT with program calls anyway ...)
> 
> Barbara Morris
>
+---
| 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
+---