|
Barbara Morris wrote:
It would _definitely_ cause problems in the subprocedure itself. The subprocedure would be trying to get the value of the parameter directly, while the caller would have passed the pointer to the parameter.
Hmmm... I seem to have lost part of this thread. I thought it had been established that this parameter was options(*nopass) and was never actually passed by any procedure?
If that's the case, why would it matter if it's changed from CONST to VALUE? There's no caller providing a pointer because nothing passes the parameter.
Unless, of course, I've missed a few messages somewhere...
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
