Re: Is const really that much better than value? -- RPG400-L

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.

Subject: Re: Is const really that much better than value?
From: Scott Klement <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:54:09 -0500
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l>
List-help: <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries <rpg400-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:rpg400-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Hello again,

There's no way to tell within the called procedure whether the caller passed the operational descriptor. If %parms is -1 you can be sure they didn't, but if it's any other value, you can't be sure.

Just to clarify your point a bit... you can tell whether a "full descriptor" was passed for a given parameter by calling the CEEDOD API. But there's no way (that I know of) to tell if the minimal descriptor containing the number of parms was passed.

For COBOL, you code BY DESCRIPTOR on the call. I don't think there's a way to do it in the LINKAGE section.

Can't you specify "USING ALL DESCRIBED" on the LINKAGE?

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 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.