Re: You know, I'm pretty sure it's zoned...

Doug Handy wrote:
>> ...
>> Aside from being historical and maintaining backward compatibility,
>> it will likely always continue to work this way simply because RPG
>> allows you to use the same field name in multiple files, and they
>> all map to the same variable within RPG.
> ...

Then R. Bruce Hoffman, Jr. wrote:
> ...
>Oh, it's likely to continue all right, but not for the reason you just
>stated, although that's the party line.  ;-)
> ...

Please elucidate.  As far as I know, the reason the compiler continues
to use the same old rules for numeric formats is exactly the way
Doug explained it.  Whatever the reasons for the RPG compiler behaving
the way it did in the past, upward compatibility keeps it behaving the
same way now.  That's upward compatibility of source AND non-recompiled
objects.

Regarding the compiler interpreting the same prototype differently
in different source members, here's how I would do the /copy file
for a prototype that had definitions dependent on F-spec fields:

D               E DS            PREFIX(typeOf_MYFILE_)
D                               EXTNAME(MYFILE)
D                               based(dummy)

D proc            PR
D   parm                        LIKE(typeOf_MYFILE_fld1)
D   parm                        LIKE(typeOf_MYFILE_fld2)

You'd still have a problem in your scenario, but at least you'd find
out at compile time.

Barbara Morris