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

["John Taylor" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: jrc@xxxxxxxxxx

> I'll keep my comments short and cut right to the chase: we 
> need procedure overloading.  If a procedure had real 
> signatures based on the name, parm list (including sizes and 
> types), and return value, then we could hash those signatures 
> to create the service programs.  RPG has bifs with 
> overloading (like %date) so why can't we have it in the language?  

Amen!

And while we're at it, let me once again beg for qualified procedure
calls. I'm tired of having to assign meaningless prefixes to my
procedure names in the hope that they won't conflict with existing code
at customer sites. Since so few sites actually use ILE, this has been
workable so far, but I don't expect my luck to hold out forever.

If you think about it, what are you going to do when you release a
service pgm with procedure xxMyProc(), only to find some other vendor
had the same naming convention, and your customer now can't use those
service programs together. If we ever reach widespread use of ILE,
things are going to get ugly.



Regards,

John Taylor