×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Andy,
I agree the open/close issue should be considered
One possible reason to use a sub-proc for file IO
could be to have the same file open twice (or more)
within a single program
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy Hautamaki
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:53 PM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Subject: Defining Files locally in Sub-Procedures - What advantages has everyone found doing it that way?
Our shop is going to be moving from V5R4 to V7 in a few months so I can finally start using the enhancements in V6 and V7.
The idea of being able to define the files in Sub-Procedures instead of globally in a module I was thinking would be very cool. Then I got to thinking when would I really need to do that? When has everyone else been finding it was a better idea to define the files in a sub-procedure?
I was reading about how the file will be closed without it having the static keyword. When would it be better to use the static versus not? If your using the sub-procedure repeatedly the open and closing of the file seems like a reason to be using the static. Interesting idea that you could be getting different records for the same file in different sub-procedures.
Thanks
Andy
--
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.
midrange.com
