RE: SQL and RPG Parameter Handling

The answer can be found in the V5R4 InfoCenter here:


http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r4/topic/sqlp/rbafyp
assarguments.htm

It's right there in the first sentence of the first paragraph, where it
says "parameters are passed to an external function by address."

What more do you need?

> On 7/30/2010 11:10 PM, Dennis Lovelady wrote:

I would argue that my point is more relevant than yours, since yours

is

based neither on SQL nor on the ILE (Service Program / Module) model.

But

that's opinion - completely immaterial, and that brings us back to

Matt's

original plea (and my echo) for SQL reference that will put the

discussion

to rest.

(Yes, sadly, that is one unwieldy sentence. You could fix it. :))

Dennis Lovelady
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dennislovelady
--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything."
-- Mark Twain

But, there is no SQL syntax, as far as I am aware, to declare which
parameters should be "pass by value" and which ones should be "pass

by

reference". -- you can only state "PARAMETER STYLE GENERAL" and that
applies to the whole stored procedure. So, I don't think your point
about service programs vs. programs matters? :-o

Mark

> On 7/30/2010 8:38 PM, Dennis Lovelady wrote:

I'm not Matt, but...

I would agree if it weren't for the fact that UDF interfaces use

service

programs and modules. The fact that *PGM objects are called only

by

reference, is immaterial.

Dennis Lovelady
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dennislovelady
--
"The most remarkable thing about my mother is that for thirty years

she

served the family nothing but leftovers. The original meal has

never

been

found."
-- Calvin Trillin

I am pretty sure that "PARAMETER STYLE GENERAL" means that each
parameter is passed "by reference", which is the usual convention

when

CALLing an external *PGM in OS/400. That is to say, since this is

an

"external" UDF, you can pass parameters by reference, but not by

value.

Does that help?

Mark S. Waterbury

> On 7/30/2010 4:30 PM, MattLavinder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

wrote:

Not sure why you feel this would require you to "always change

the

prototype." Seems to me (what works for me is) that for UDF and

stored

procedures, my prototypes say CONST instead of VALUE. What

problem

does

this create for you?

Basically I was asking, "Am I doing this wrong or is this the

only

way to

fix it?" It's not difficult, but if I was defining the UDF

incorrectly,

correcting that definition would be a simpler solution.