|
Hi Joep, <snip> Adding a new prototype to a copy book may lead to duplicate definitions. So, in order to accomplish something in program A you extend a copy book. A few months later you modify program B and it won't compile (Experience? How did you guess.). Thus, it makes sense for a change management system to force a compile for all sources referencing the copy book. </snip>This is why we need namespaces in RPG. Of course, you can simply name your procedures using modulename_procedurename syntax. That way you can guarantee two similarly named procedures in two different modules wil never clash.
However, procedure name clashes will not get resolved by a mass-recompile by a change management system. The problem will only be highlighted during first-phase development and not during subsequent development Such things as name clashes should be considered during the design phase, and new procedure names should be included as part of the development definition. I know it is never that simple, but if one of our programmers unilaterally created a toUpper() procedure, I'd choke on my coffee because I just KNOW it would conflict with something somewhere. I don't need a mass-recompile to know that. :-)
Cheers Larry ducie
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.
midrange.com
