Re: Can you have nested MONITOR statements?

[Scott Klement <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Instead of defining a "block of status codes" for user-written 
applications, I'd prefer to see MONITOR able to monitor for message IDs, 
similar to the way CL's MONMSG is able to check for msgids.

That way, a throw() routine is nothing more than a wrapper for QMHSNDPM 
-- it just sends an escape message from a *MSGF...   Users can create 
and add message descriptions to their own message files as they see fit.

With MONITOR able to trap specific error messages, you'd trap for 
USR0001 (or whatever) to catch the user's errors.   Plus, you'd be able 
to use it with IBM APIs and CL commands that already return escape 
messages with message ids.


Jon Paris wrote:
> Are you listening Barbara? <grin>  - I do think we need support for a
> an RPG implementation of throw().  The problem right now is that when
> you throw an exception you still need some kind of return code in the
> background because RPG only signals a generic code to Monitor.  There
> are hundreds of available status codes - it would be nice if a block
> was allocated as User Defined and the throw op-code allowed you to
> specify a specific status code that you were signaling.  If I had
> that I'd use it for most everything.