RE: Compile failed when try to do return not SUCCESSFUL where SUCCESSFULis declared as const

Paul,
 
> In your example, why can't you just return *Off?

>From the point of view of a person relatively new to RPG, 'return *OFF' is 
much less clear than 'return FALSE', 'return INCOMPLETE', or even 'return 
not SUCCESSFUL;'.

Just my humble opinion,
Adam

 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Lim Hock-Chai
> Sent: 05 May 2006 18:00
> To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
> Subject: Compile failed when try to do return not SUCCESSFUL where
> SUCCESSFULis declared as const
> 
> D SUCCESSFUL      c                   const(*on) 
> D proc1           pr              n 
> 
> C                   eval      *inlr = *on 
>  *------------------------------------------------------ 
>  * test return with not SUCCESSFUL 
> P proc1           B 
> D                 pi              n 
> 
> C                   return    not SUCCESSFUL 
> P proc1           E 
> 
> 
> I'm getting this:
> Msg id  Sv Number Seq     Message text
> 
> RNF7421 30     12 001200  Operands are not compatible with the type of
> operator.
> 
> 
> If I changed SUCCESSFUL to be a variable, it compile ok.   Any reason
> why I can't do "return not constBoolean"?

#####################################################################################
Attention:
The above message and/or attachment(s) is private and confidential and is 
intended 
only for the people for which it is addressed. If you are not named in the 
address 
fields, ignore the contents and delete all the material. Thank you. Have a nice 
day.

For more information on email virus scanning, security and content
management, please contact administrator@xxxxxxxxxxxx
#####################################################################################