RE: Qualified sub-procedures

[Jim Langston <jlangston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've seen this question a lot, and have always wondered, why not just qualify 
the name yourself when you name it until it's put in the compiler?

MyLibrary.MyFunction
MyOtherLibrary.MyOtherFunction
MyThirdLibrary.MyThirdFunction
if it doesn't accept . in a function name, try -, or # or whatever.

I understand this is a kludge, and is a sloppy work around, but it would work.

It would prevent, however, using the simple name MyFunction, it would always 
have to be "qualified".

Regards,

Jim Langston

-----Original Message-----
From: Bartell, Aaron L. (TC) [mailto:ALBartell@taylorcorp.com]

IBM'ers

I know this has been asked before awhile ago, but what is the outlook on
getting qualified subprocedure names?  The corporation I work for is
currently re-writing a vast majority of their software and ILE is going to
be used heavily.  This is a big concern for us because we want to try and
leverage ILE as much as possible but this has come up as a major road block.
We are now trying to find ways to make our sub-procudures unique in 15
spaces (I think that's how many there are in V5R1) but still make them
understandable and that is next to impossible when designing a large system.
We have too much knowledge invested in RPG to use a language more suited to
OO design so switching is for the most part out of the question. (even
though I wouldn't mind;-)

I put this on my RPG voting ballot as a requested enhancement and feel that
it is a necessity vs. something that should even be voted on.  What is the
outlook on something like this?  How many others would like this same
enhancement?

I can't wait for overloading!!!! (assuming it made the cut;-)