Re: declaring a file local to a sub-procedure

[Bryce Martin <BMartin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, as discussed a lot of times, being able to pass the file would be 
hugely beneficial to "simplify" a lot of code.  Anybody heard anything 
about this being supported any time in the near future?


Thanks
Bryce Martin
Programmer/Analyst I
570-546-4777



Jon Paris <jon.paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
09/29/2009 06:00 PM
Please respond to
RPG programming on the IBM i / System i <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
cc

Subject
Re: declaring a file local to a sub-procedure






Nope - nothing special.  Which is why using STATIC for the file is 
probably a good idea if the recursive capabilities are not needed.

In many cases I think the ability to pass a file in as a parm to a 
subprocedure or program will be more useful for generic routines than 
being able to have the file local to the subproc.


Jon Paris

www.Partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com



On 29-Sep-09, at 2:19 PM, rpg400-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> This now brings up an additional question, since this works along 
> the same
> way as a USROPN, how much additional overhead does this generate?  I 
> mean,
> if you include a file locally to a procedure and that procedure is 
> invoked
> for every order, the overhead for opening and closing that file 
> could be
> huge.....
>
> Or does IBM preload the file so the overhead is lower on subsequent 
> opens?