RE: Qualified sub-procedures

Because you didn't attend my session on it at COMMON. :)

Bob Cozzi


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpg400-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:rpg400-l-admin@midrange.com] On Behalf Of Bartell,
> Aaron L. (TC)
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 5:01 PM
> To: 'rpg400-l@midrange.com'
> Subject: RE: Qualified sub-procedures
>
>
> I am going to do that now.  I thought I was limited to 15 or
> so characters when what I really needed was at least 20.  It
> doesn't look like that will be a problem anymore.  I don't
> know how I missed that when the new release came out???
>
> Thanks for the example Bob,
> Aaron Bartell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Langston [mailto:jlangston@celsinc.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 4:57 PM
> To: 'rpg400-l@midrange.com'
> Subject: RE: Qualified sub-procedures
>
>
> 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;-)
> _______________________________________________
> This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L)
> mailing list To post a message email: RPG400-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/rpg400-l
> or email: RPG400-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.
> _______________________________________________
> This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L)
> mailing list To post a message email: RPG400-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/rpg400-l
> or email: RPG400-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.
>
>
>