Re: CONST and VALUE revisited

ah yes...local variables rock 8^)

Thanks,
Tommy Holden



From:
Adam Glauser <adamglauser@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
01/29/2009 08:36 AM
Subject:
Re: CONST and VALUE revisited
Sent by:
rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx

-----Message d'origine-----
De : rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx

[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Barbara Morris

Envoyé : jeudi 29 janvier 2009 02:43

There's one way a CONST parameter can be changed while the procedure
is running. If you pass a global variable by CONST to a subprocedure
in the same module, and the subprocedure modifies the global variable
directly, then the value of the CONST parameter may reflect the
change.

David FOXWELL wrote:

YES! That was it! That's the problem I have had come across from time to

time.

I admit it, in this case VALUE instead of CONST is a quick fix.

Normally, the program would be written in RPGLE and we'd use CONST and
that'd be it.

I'm not sure I follow you David. You're concerned with the value of the
parameter _after_ the procedure call is complete, right? Using VALUE
instead of CONST isn't going to make a difference in the case Barbara
mentions. The value of the variable will still be changed after the
procedure has finished. If a procedure references a global variable
directly, the only thing you can do is change the code in the procedure
to fix it.

This is exactly why procedures are preferred over subroutines in new
development. Changing (or even referencing) global variables in code
that is intended to be reused is almost always bad practice.