RE: Prototyped Procedures

> From: James Rich
> >
> > If I'm debugging, I had better be able to see the source code of the
> > modules I'm calling.
> 
> Huh??  How is this even relevant?

Because the point of keeping them separate was to keep people from
seeing the source.  If you're seeing the source anyway, the original
argument was moot.  Clear?


> True, but why needlessly force a DEFINE on people?

It's not "needless".  It's simply the way to include the prototype while
keeping the prototype in the source.


> > "much cleaner"?  How?
> 
> Cleaner because when you copy those members in, you do so to access
the
> function definitions.  Requiring the additional step of DEFINE is
simply
> tedious.

I think this is a bit nitpicky.  You want to get rid of something
useless, please get rid of those stupid semicolons in /free.


> I think I see your point here.  It may well be that the best current
> solution is the one you suggest.  But it appears to me that this
solution
> is a work around for the lack of data type definitions in RPG (i.e.
> typedef).  But that is RPG's fault, not yours.

Yes and no.  I really do some very neat stuff with this.

For example, in my I/O procedures I can specify (via another /DEFINE) in
my calling program the maximum number of records to return and the
prototype builds all the structures for me, which I then pass to the
callee.  Different programs can then allocate only the amount of memory
they find necessary.

Joe