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

[Scott Klement <klemscot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Remember, I am about as clueless here as they get, but let me make a
> comment.  While I agree that a hardcoded signature is sort of like
> LVLCHK(*NO), it's more like an intelligent LVLCHK(*NO).

No, it's pretty much exactly like LVLCHK(*NO).   Wait, are we talking
about the LVLCHK(*NO) on a PF/LF, or are we talking about the LVLCHK
keyword on the STRPGMEXP statement?

In either case, I'll argue that setting the signature manually is about
the same thing as LVLCHK(*NO).

> Let's carry the analogy forward.  This is LVLCHK(*NO) when you know all
> the original fields are the same and you're only adding fields to the
> end of the record.

But, you don't know that the fields are the same.  You can add exports on
the top, bottom, middle...  doesn't matter, since the signature hasn't
changed, it won't ever raise an alarm.

> Now, if I had applications that read a file, and I knew that the record
> format was the same and that those applications had no need for the new
> fields, I'd be fine with LVLCHK(*NO).

Sure, but you have to manually change the signature to something different
each time the order of the exports has changed.   If you don't do that, it
will just call the wrong procedures.   It's equivalent to keeping your PF
at LVLCHK(*NO) until you add new fields in the middle of the record, and
then changing it to LVLCHK(*YES).

But, as Barbara pointed out, using *CURRENT/*PRV with SIGNATURE(*GEN)
isn't any better.  You still end up with the same problems.   Really,
this whole signature thing was poorly designed.