RE: *entry and PR with same program as EXTPGM

Chamara,

In the situation you illustrated, the ExtPgm( ) isn't really required. But obviously doesn't cause any problems. As Adam (I think) said, the PR definitions should be in a copy book somewhere. So in the copy book the ExtPgm( ) keyword makes sense since it may be a candidate for inclusion in another program that calls this one.

I don't know for a fact, but I doubt there is any advantage in using either method to define the parameters (*Entry list). My bet is that it's the PI structure that defines the PList and that the PR is just along (syntactically) for the ride. If that's true (big IF), the compiler will generate the same code for both.

The "advantage" is in the eye of the beholder. Like someone else said, I hated using PList when I moved to free format. When Jon told me about this method at a COMMON session, I jumped on it because, well, it just looks neater.

Jerry C. Adams
IBM System i Programmer/Analyst
--
B&W Wholesale
office: 615-995-7024
email: jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chamara Withanachchi
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:00 AM
To: RPG Programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: *entry and PR with same program as EXTPGM

Hi all,

Can someone clarify me what is the different between *ENTRY and coding a procedure as the same name of the program and using EXTPGM keyword

Ex;

Abcpgm pr extpgm('ABCPGM')
Parm1 10a

Abcpgm pi
Parm1 10a



Regards,

Chamara Withanachchi
IBM Certified Power System Expert
RPG Programmer
(owner of www.rpgiv.info)

WWW.RPGIV.INFO
Mob: +971 50 5698644
Tel: +971 6 5595887
chamaraw@xxxxxxxxxx
www.rpgiv.info
i want to be future ready. i want control. i want an i.


Sent from my BlackBerry(r) wireless device