Re: What are the dangers of changing the return type of a subprocedure?

Thanks all, I was debating back on forth on what to do. I didn't want to
break programs I missed and cause a critical irreversible error, but I want
to change the format. This is the best of both worlds.

--
Mike Wills
http://mikewills.me


On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Barbara Morris <bmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I agree with the others in this thread that you should create a new
function since it sounds like it must be a function in a service program.

After you change all the existing callers that you've found, you might
consider adding some code to the old function to help you locate the
callers that you missed, so that all the "new invoice" code is
centralized in your new function.

It could just log the calling program/module/procedure in a file for
checking later, or it could also send an email for new entries in the
file, or it could even signal an exception if you really didn't want
anyone calling the old function.
--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (RPG400-L) mailing

list

To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.

--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.