RE: Passing Parms

>From a maintenance standpoint I'd have to argue that it's actually
harder to maintain due to what Scott describes below.  IMO it's much
easier to determine what's coming in & going out using individual parms.
I've worked in a shop that used the DS for parameters scenario due to a
GUI programming environment (which they didn't understand how to pass
multiple parms even though the environment accomodated it.)  debugging
the garbage they fed into it was a bear.  Not to mention the fact that
they also "misused" the data structures integrity when passing data
between programs. 


Thanks,
Tommy Holden


-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott Klement
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 10:56 AM
To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: Passing Parms

> Another thing, which I admit is a foible, is that I prefer to pass a 
> data structure and use only one parm. Much easier for maintenance 
> later on.

Do you also pass the length of the data structure, and make certain that
the called program never exceeds that length?  The only problem I have
with that is that you then have to rely on the caller to pass the
correct length. As soon as someone who doesn't understand passes the
wrong length, you run into problems.

I usually find it much easier to maintain if each parm is passed
separately, since I can then just check %parms to see if they were
passed. 
Now I don't have to rely on the caller.

So, why do you think data structures are easier to maintain?

--
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.