Hi Hans,
My two cents on this:
The DCL keyword: This would make my RPG look like CL. That alone would kill it for me.
Comma vs Colon: Only a proctologist would really care.
Calc Spec V: Already free so we just lose the /free and /end-free and make it compulsory.
At this point in time I really don't think I would want my $100 spent on freeing RPG. It is functionality I want, not lipstick.
I would spend my money on:
1) Overloading sub-procedures ($75)
This is an obvious need and is well overdue.
2) Namespaces for Service Programs and Modules ($20)
I would like to have a NAMESPACE keyword (H-spec) for a SRVPGM or MODULE and then qualify a procedure with that namespace. This would allow me to reference two service programs that export a similarly named subprocedure and not have conflicts.
For example, two SRVPGMS export a getName procedure. This conflict is solved with the following two lines:
NAMESPACE(MYSRVPGM1 : 'Contact')
NAMESPACE(MYSRVPGM2 : 'Customer')
I could then have:
contactName = Contact::GetName(parm);
customerName = Customer::GetName(parm);
We REALLY need this. We use so many SRVPGMS and it just gets harder and harder to keep procedure names unique across our SRVPGMs. We simply shouldn't have to.
3) Ability to put a Binding Directory into another Binding Directory ($5)
We have lots of Service Programs, and we generate quite complex inter-dependencies. For our prototype copybooks we can copy our prototypes into other copybooks to form new (more complex) copybooks. Unfortunately, we can't do the same with our Binding Directories. This is a real pain.
Example:
A Person 'object' is implemented in three SRVPGMS. Each has its own copybook and Binding Direcory. To include the Person objects in a program we use a /include of the PERSON copybook (which includes a /include of the three SRVPGM copybooks). We also reference the PERSON Binding Directory. This doesn't reference the theee original Binding Directories (because it can't) so it has to list the three SRVPGM objects again. If we split one of the original SRVPGMS into two we would have issues. The copybook is easy because we reference the two new copybooks in the original and all copybooks built on it would get the new values. However, ALL of the Binding Directories that list the original SRVPGM have to be found and amended. This could be solved by simply amending the original Binding Directory to include a refenrece to the two new Binding Directories and letting all references filter through. Just want to keep it consistent.
Hope that all makes sense, and Happy New Year!
Cheers
Larry Ducie
_________________________________________________________________
View photos of singles in your area! Browse profiles for FREE
http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/150855801/direct/01/
midrange.com
