Re: Static Variables in a subprocedure

Ken, I hope you don't mind if I jump in here too. The way I look at it, properly encapsulating the variable in question trumps any argument about the weirdness of using a second prototype.

For one thing, you don't really _need_ the second prototype. You could, as was already suggested, use *NOPASS or *OMIT for all the parameters. Of course that method has its own pitfalls, and personally I prefer Barbara's method because it is more self-documenting.

Also, you say:

All global variables subject to being "messed with". Even static
local variables are subject to being "messed with" inside of the
procedure.

Competent programmers pay attention to what they are doing, so I don't
consider protection from being messed with as a reason for lying to
the compiler to allow a single procedure to have two different
prototypes.

You can mess with just about anything if you really put your mind to it. Properly encapsulating as a local variable just makes it harder. Of even more benefit, in my opinion, proper encapsulation means that the competent programmer needs keep one less thing in mind when working on unrelated procedures within the module.