×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
ATM the PI does not have to follow the P-spec.
P testing B
D x S 10I 0
D items S *
D testing PI 10I 0
/free
return 3455;
/end-free
P E
Code compiles and executes fine.
But why don't borrow things from other languages like
procedure int testing()
or
int testing()
Adding scope to it:
public int testing()
Regards
Mihael
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Loyd Goodbar
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 2:11 PM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Subject: Re: RPGV?
+1 here. Also, what is the rationale behind the P specification? Since
every
subprocedure I've seen or written starts with the procedure interface
(PI),
coding "P someproc B" and "P someproc E" seems redundant. In other
words,
codify that a new subprocedure begins with its interface and do away
with
the clutter.
--Loyd
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Jeff Crosby
<jlcrosby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
Because you have to do it in each and every subprocedure.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Paul Nicolay <Paul.Nicolay@xxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
Ake,
Just code in in free completely and you will only have one /free,
and one
/end-free !
midrange.com
