RE: Explanation

From Scott:

" Frankly, there are a small minority of people who get confused by CONST because they have this strange opinion that when you pass something by CONST it can't be changed by ANY method at all, even other means of accessing the same underlying memory. To my mind, those people are the ones who are wrong, not the way CONST works today!"

I agree.

Though in my response I was referring to changing the parameter directly. There is still no way that I know of. Passing a global variable into a parameter and then changing that global variable in the procedure is bad coding, in my opinion. As is the scenario of passing a DS subfield as Const then passing the entirety of that same DS as not Const.

I can see why people would push for using Value to prevent this from happening. Although in our data processing shop, I push Const. I'd rather pass 16 bytes tens of million times over than the actual length of lengthy variables and data structures.

-Kurt

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott Klement
Frankly, there are a small minority of people who get confused by CONST because they have this strange opinion that when you pass something by CONST it can't be changed by ANY method at all, even other means of accessing the same underlying memory. To my mind, those people are the ones who are wrong, not the way CONST works today!