Re: Qualified procedure names

Buck,

You've got it alright, but I already knew that you were in that small group
of developers who are using this stuff. So my question to you is, why don't
you make some noise about it? Do you not think it's an useful enhancement?

This is one of those limitations that I find myself having to work around
every single day.


John Taylor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Buck Calabro" <Buck.Calabro@commsoft.net>
To: <rpg400-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:48 PM
Subject: RE: Qualified procedure names


> >Maybe it's because there just aren't that many of us
> >doing ILE development yet.
>
> I still hear that RPG III is plenty good enough and that climbing a new
> learning curve simply isn't worth it.  From programmers.  They view me as
a
> special case who needs RPG IV and ILE because I'm the interface guy and I
> don't do 'day to day' stuff.
>
> >Or maybe the concept hasn't been clearly
> >explained to those unfamiliar with languages
> >other than RPG.
>
> Well I think I got it.
>
> I write an in-house function (oops.  Procedure) named qsort.  That
function
> is a special quick sort for  putting toll records into temporal order.
You
> have written an RPG implementation of the C qsort() and kindly put it on
the
> Web.  I really could use that to replace a home-grown binary sort that
I've
> been using in lieu of LOOKUP.  When I try to bind your service program,
> there are two 'qsort' procedures and I can't tell the compiler that I want
> my qsort for the tolls work and your qsort for the LOOKUP replacement, as
in
>
> callp taylor.qsort(array)
> callp commsoft.qsort(customer_key)
>
> How'd I do?
>   --buck