Re: Converting *ENTRY & PLIST to free format

(I do come across installations
where standards expressly forbid the use of /COPY - hence another appeal

of

the V7.1 enhancements.)

Those standards are probably old enough not to know about /INCLUDE, so,
while your splitting hairs anyway, you should be able to get away with
using /INCLUDE :-)

Joep Beckeringh


rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 26-06-2013 12:45:33:

Brian Parkins


Barbara, thank you for clearly outlining "best practice" for coding

PR/PI to

replace the old-style *ENTRY PLIST.

The (RPG Reference) Manual confused me somewhat. In the V7.1 "What's
New" section it states:
"Optional prototypes
If a program or procedure is not called by another RPG module, it is
optional to specify the prototype. The prototype may be omitted for the
following types of programs and procedures:
- A program that is only intended to be used as an exit program or as

the

command-processing program for a command
- A program that is only intended to be called from a different

programming

language <<<<<
- A procedure that is not exported from the module
- A procedure that is exported from the module but only intended to be
called from a different programming language"

The above text suggests Program A cannot call Program B if both programs

are

written in RPG _and_ Program B has no prototype defined within the

module.

This has never made sense to me. But perhaps I am misinterpreting?

The following example works perfectly well - now that we can specify

EXTPGM

on the PI in Program B. Yet the code appears to contradict the Manual.
========================================
// Module/program name is PROGRAMA
D CallParms Pr ExtPgm('PROGRAMB')
D 10A Const
D String S 10A Inz('String 8')
/Free
CallP CallParms(String);
*InLR = *On;
/End-Free
========================================
// Module/program name is PROGRAMB
// No Prototype (PR)
D EntryPlist Pi ExtPgm('PROGRAMB')
D String 10A Const
/Free
Dsply String '*REQUESTER';
*InLR = *On;
/End-Free
========================================
PLEASE NOTE: I am _not_ suggesting the above example is good practice! I

appreciate it would be far wiser to code the prototype in a separate

source

member and /COPY in both of the above programs.

I know I am "splitting hairs" and probably wearing out my welcome. The
reason I am trying to nail down the semantics is because the above

example

is an easier starting point from which to teach the use of PI/PR to

students

familiar with the old PLIST way of doing things. (Duplicating the PR is

both Caller and Called programs does not make a good impression at first

look.)

I agree wholeheartedly that using /COPY to embed the PR in both programs

is

desirable for building more robust code. (I do come across installations

where standards expressly forbid the use of /COPY - hence another appeal

of

the V7.1 enhancements.)

Thanks again for everyone's patience!
Brian Parkins.