Re: Confused about cycle-main procedure calls.

Scott, et al.

I'm more intrigued by a statement in the paragraph that precedes this one -

"A cycle-main procedure can be called through a bound call, or through a program call."

Using a program call is easy to understand - it's just how it has always been. But I don't think I've thought of calling the main procedure of a program either using CALLB or using CALLP to a prototype with EXTPROC() specified - I hope I'm correct in that both are bound calls.

Thing is, I've never HAD to consider doing that - EXTPGM() in a prototype takes care of things for all I need.

Is this new with 6.1, now that we can name a subprocedure as the entry procedure? Just curious.

Vern

Scott Klement wrote:

Hi David,

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/systems/scope/i5os/index.jsp?topic=/rzasd/sc09250889.htm&tocNode=toc:rzahg/i5os/12/10/6/0/1/2/1/
The linear-main procedure can only be called through a program call;
it cannot be called using a bound call. >

This says that linear-main can only be called as a program call. Since CALLP is able to do program calls, you should be able to use CALLP.

Several people (myself included) have already explained that CALLP can do both dynamic ("program") and bound ("procedure") calls in this very thread. Surely you don't still doubt it?

Am I simply misunderstanding the meaning of CALLP? If I use it to
call a program as opposed to a subprocedure, and at runtime the
program doesn't exist, then it won't work.

I seem to be missing your point. You can't call something that doesn't exist. Surely you're not suggesting that it's desirable to call something that doesn't exist?

The code from the program isn't bound to the caller. So CALLP to a
program is not a bound call?

Program calls are not bound calls. Never have been. Procedure calls are bound calls. Always have been. CALLP can do either.