Re: %PARMS not always "trusted"?

[Dan <dan27649@xxxxxxxxx>]

After about 20 tests, with various quantities of parameters passed, %PARMS
appears to be "trustworthy" in this environment.

On 7/19/06, Bob Cozzi <cozzi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I believe the CL interface, which is probably what's being used, will pass
> the
> minimal descriptor as well. Similar to calling it from Command Entry.
> I think it was referring to C calling RPG IV.
>
> -Bob Cozzi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Dan
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 4:43 PM
> To: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: %PARMS not always "trusted"?
>
> I've got an FTP script running on Windows that calls an RPGLE program via
> "quote rcmd Call RPGprog ...".  I need to know in the RPGLE program how
> many
> parameters were passed because one version of the FTP script passes only
> one, but another version passes five.  I was all set to use the %PARMS
> BIF,
> but was unsure what to make of the following warning in the ILE RPG
> Reference:
>
>   The value returned by %PARMS is not available if the
>   program or procedure that calls %PARMS does not pass
>   a minimal operational descriptor. The ILE RPG compiler
>   always passes one, but other languages do not. So if
>   the caller is written in another ILE language, it will
>   need to pass an operational descriptor on the call. If
>   the operational descriptor is not passed, the value
>   returned by %PARMS cannot be trusted.
>
> What the heck is a "minimal operational descriptor"?  And does the caller
> in
> this case (FTP script's "quote rcmd Call RPGprog ...") pass it?  If not,
> can
> I specify it somehow?
>
> TIA,
> Dan