Re: Unresolved References using Prototyped Functions & CallP

["Joep Beckeringh" <joep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon,

I am all for using prototypes, but in what way will he benefit when he gets
the case wrong in EXTPROC?

Joep Beckeringh


----- Original Message -----
From: <Jon.Paris@hal.it>
To: <rpg400-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Unresolved References using Prototyped Functions & CallP


>
>
>
>  >> It did.  I defined the prototype as EXTPROC('MyProc') instead of
> EXTPROC('MYPROC').  It worked perfectly once I changed that line.
>
> Although he change you made "fixed" the problem there was a better way.
If
> the called module is defined with a Procedure Interface (PI) instead of a
> *Entry PLIST then you will get a number of benefits:
>
> 1) The prototype used in the CALLP will be validated since it will also
> have to be /COPY'd into the called module.
>
> 2) Any CONST parameters will be checked to ensure that the called module
> does nothing to change them
>
> 3) You can use VALUE parameters if you wish
>
> 4) You can use a mixed case name if you wish (i.e. Your 'MyProc' would
have
> worked just fine)
>
> There are probably a host of other good reasons but 4 is a nice round
> number!



+---
| 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
+---