|
Barbara, Why is it that it is "better" this way? This way (using *OMIT) is how I do it, but why would it be better? -Bob > > "DeLong, Eric" wrote: > > > > So far so good. Now the problem. The use of this api states: > > > > "Total tax amount for the transaction. This parameter is used when > > processing special (tax-only debit and tax-only credit) > transactions. This > > parameter is ignored if NULL is passed. Passing 0 results in zero > tax being > > calculated." > > > > Entended amount is fine, since we will have a calculated value for > that > > every time we call the api. But for the call to work properly, we > must send > > the other parm as NULL. How in the he!! am I supposed to do that? > Does C > > consider a parm to be null if the address is null? > > > > Eric, while the others' suggestion of changing the prototype to be a > pointer and passing *NULL will work, I think it's better to > prototype it > as a float, with OPTIONS(*OMIT), and then pass *OMIT for null. > > _______________________________________________ > This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) > mailing list > To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l > or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives > at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.