RE: Another ILE question : CONST vs VALUE

Anyone else had this problem? What's the point of using CONST instead of

VALUE apart from performance issues? I'd say that if I see VALUE on a
parameter I'm sure that it wasn't intended to be changed in the procedure.

I suspect that this is a problem for you because you are still using a
*ENTRY PLIST instead of a PI. If you used a PI then the CONST rule would
also be enforced by the called program.

There may also be a slight misunderstanding of the meaning of CONST. Unlike
VALUE, CONST do _not_ guarantee that a copy of the parm will be passed. A
copy is only made if there is a parm mis-match (i.e. passing a 5,0 to a
program that expects a 7,0) - if the parm is an exact match then the
original is passed. As a result if the called program does not use a PI,
then the original field can indeed be changed by the called program.

I really wish the compiler would implement a CONST_AND_I_MEAN_IT option i.e.
the parm is always passed by copy. This is effectively what the old PARM
with Factor 2 did and it is missing from RPG IV as noted above.



Jon Paris
Partner400

www.Partner400.com