RE: Prototyping a constructor of java String class

["Bob Cozzi" <cozzi@xxxxxxxxx>]

Another compiler?????????????????????????????????

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Barbara Morris
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:23 PM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Prototyping a constructor of java String class

"Rooney, Michael P" wrote:
> 
> Barbara,
> 
> Thanks for clarifing my questions and comments.  In one of my posts
> I mentioned how there seemed to be no impact in combining VARYING
> with OPTIONS(*VARSIZE).  Is this a valid observation?  Given your
> feedback, does it make sense, as a best practice, to combine the 2?
> 

Yes, it's a valid observation.  With a CONST VARYING parameter, the
compiler doesn't really need OPTIONS(*VARSIZE) to know it is safe to
pass a shorter parameter without copying it to a temporary.  The called
procedure isn't supposed to access beyond the passed length of the
string, so it doesn't matter what, if anything, is passed beyond the
valid length.

Best practice?  Hmm.  Another compiler might not make that optimization
without being told *VARSIZE, so I guess it's a good idea to code both.

--
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.