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

[Jim Langston <jimlangston@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The problem with this, James, is that if you change an existing parameter,
you are going to have to go back in all your code and change all your calls
to this function, which is not only time consuming, but can introduce bugs.

Much easier to be able to modify the function to allow different scenarios.

Then go back and fix the code at your leisure.

Regards,

Jim Langston

Me transmitte sursum, Caledoni!

"James W. Kilgore" wrote:
> 
> Ron,
> 
> I believe that you mentioned that this all boiled down to a design issue.  
>Since
> this seems to be an ever changing program, the next time you have to make a
> change, how about changing parameter #1 to be which procedure or function the
> calling program wants?
> 
> Either checking the number of parms or null to determine which function to
> perform, IMHO, is way too subtle and prone to misinterpretation.  It may be a
> PITA to do this, but it will be a larger PITA if you don't.
> 
> 2cents
+---
| 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
+---