Re: binder language, binding directories, bind by copy/reference

["Richard B Baird" <rbaird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Barbara,

could you elaborate a little on what you are trying to say?

do you mean that by hard coding your signature, you still don't need to
re-bind the srvpgm to it's previous callers after you add a procedure?

If so, I agree, i'm not enamored with the *current/*prv scheme either.

and, if so, what is the purpose of that scheme?

thanks,

Rick

-----original message - Barbara Morris said--------
Jon Paris wrote:
>
> There is one point Scott omitted from his excellent summary on Binder
> Language.
>
> When you add new procedures you should always add them _to_the_end_ of
the
> list.  Do not be tempted to be "tidy" and add them in alpha (or any
other)
> order.  If you do not follow this simple rule, really interesting things
can
> happen!
>

Given that you have to keep the procedures in the same order in all the
lists, why is the *CURRENT/*PRV method preferred over the hard-coded
signature method?

For example, this might be your entire binder source when using a
hardcoded signature:

signature('SRVPGMNAM')
  procA
  procB
  procC
  procB2

This would be your entire binder source when using *CURRENT / *PRV

signature(*current)
  procA
  procB
  procC
  procB2

signature(*prv)
  procA
  procB
  procC

signature(*prv)
  procA
  procB

I just don't see the attraction of the second one.