Re: override scope in a procedure

[Scott Klement <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Loop??  I really don't understand what you're saying...   How could an 
activation group ever create a loop?

Indeed, I completely disagree with you about IBM putting in error 
checks.  The problem is, IBM does *not* put in those types of checks. 
That's the whole problem with RCLRSC against an ILE service program.  It 
doesn't check for stupidity.  RCLRSC closes the files, because it 
understands open files -- but it doesn't unload the service program 
because it has no notion of service programs.  The service programs have 
no way to detect that RCLRSC freed up the memory they were using to 
interface with the database, and they simply start overwriting random 
memory until they get lucky enough to crash.

Had IBM put in error checking, they would've prevented you from running 
ILE code in the dftactgrp via *CALLER so that this sort of breakage 
wouldn't happen.   (Of course, they can't make that change now, because 
too many people are actually USING this mistake as a "feature".)

But, anyway, I have no idea what you mean by a "loop" or the shampoo 
analogy.  Can you explain why you think running ILE in *CALLER from an 
OPM program would cause a loop?

Jerry Adams wrote:
> Yeah, I know that it's best not to use the default activation group,
> and that bad things can happen.  It's just that Dftactgrp(*no)
> actgrp(*caller), when the caller is in the default activation group,
> seemed like a loop.  Sort of like the instructions on shampoo
> bottles: Lather, rinse, repeat.
>
> I guess IBM put in "That's the dumbest thing I've seen today" error
> checks for these kinds of things.