|
Thanks everyone. Scott: Yes, using the defaults. snip <If you use LVLCHK(*NO) or SIGNATURE('mysignature') then it's even less restrictive. In those cases, you'll never get a signature violation, even if you DO change the exports in the binder source. But then it's even more important not to remove or rearrange the exports in the binder source, since that could cause existing programs to call the wrong procedures...> Maybe I won't go that route, after all. >From Lim Hok-Chai: <If all you did is changed the code in the export >procedure, it will not change the signature. That is one of the reason of using service program instead of module.> OK OK....big light coming on here! I was wrapped up in the details of binder source and signatures and missing the main point - the reason for the signature. Thanks again. This forum is invaluable. Maybe in another 10-20 years I'll be able to contribute rather than picking your brains all of the time. You don't see me, but I'm in here very often. Fran Denoncourt Sr. Programmer/Analyst Pinal County Treasurer's Office Florence, AZ 85232 (520) 866-6404
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.