RE: Parameter prototype question

David FOXWELL
Service Informatique
Tél : 03 90 23 91 63
david.foxwell@xxxxxxxxx

-----Message d'origine-----
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Dennis Lovelady

both CONST
and VALUE will cause a conversion from your input data type
to your procedure's required data type. In this case, you
have a field that can hold a value of plus/minus 999 million
and change. Your procedure has a limit of plus/minus
9 million and change. Your usage of CONST made the compiler
accept the difference, providing a temporary (same size as
specified in the proto) that would be passed to the
procedure.

Fascinating. So, I'm guessing that the program crashed when it was copying the value of the 9,0 field to the temporary 9,2 field, which is why I could not step into the procedure. I wonder if I'd been able to detect that event while displaying the job.

If you want to be "protected" from such mistakes, remove the
CONST (and don't be tempted to replace it with VALUE). But
then you will lose a different kind of protection.

Well, now I'm wondering about the value of using CONST at all. I don't see that that's much protection against anything unless you don't test. It seems we only really need it to indicate which parameters are intended to be used as input only. The kind of problem I've had without using CONST could be waiting to happen in many other procedures.

Thanks.