Re: Qualified procedure names

["John Taylor" <jtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Scott,

Thanks for speaking up. That now makes three of us!

Hans, is that enough to qualify as a consensus? :)


John Taylor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Mildenberger" <Smildenber@Washcorp.com>
To: <rpg400-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:14 PM
Subject: RE: MOVE opcode in freeform (was Strange behavior w/%editc)


> John,
>
> I know exactly what you are talking about and I too would like to see
> qualified procedure names.  This would allow a sort of object oriented
> approach to creating service programs.  I could have a service program
named
> Invoice and another called BillOfLading, they both could have a procedure
> called Print.  I would much prefer this rather than having to name each
> procedure something like InvoicePrint.  Unable to have qualified procedure
> names really disappointed me when I first started creating service
programs.
> I believe the reason you don't see may complaining about this is there
> aren't that many people using service programs and procedures like they
> really should be.  I think procedures and service programs are one of the
> greatest features added but it is very difficult to convince the typical
RPG
> programmer of how great they are.
>
> Scott Mildenberger
>