Re: Are subroutines codependent?

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Admittedly, there are things I'd like to see in RDi - like the state of 
indenting even when there are blank lines - as in Visual Studio, IIRC.

Dieter, you mention that "...there is no prototype anyway, declaring the 
interface is sufficient..." - this is now the case in RPG, as well, for 
procedures in the same module.

There is also a wizard for new procedures - opinions vary on how good it 
is, but it IS there. You can select different kinds of procedures, and 
it might have an option that does not create a prototype - I haven't 
tried that.

I agree that it would be a nice feature if RDi would "notice" when a 
procedure is not defined yet - it actually might, with live outline - 
does anything show up in the left to indicate this?

So Dieter, I suggest that you create an RFE for this feature - I would 
vote for it. It does seem to line up nicely with the recent change that 
prototypes are not needed for local procedures.

Vern

On 7/9/2014 1:05 AM, D*B wrote:
> <Birgitta>
> IMHO for beginners using ILE concepts subroutines might still be 
> helpful for
> encapsulating and structuring the encapsulated source code.
> But as soon as they have learned to think really modular, they'll find 
> out
> subroutines are not needed
> </Birgitta>
>
> Might be true for ILE newbies with some years RPG background. Real 
> beginners should not hear about subroutines before they have 
> incorporated to use procedures. It's better to learn first how to do 
> and maybe afterwards(or maybe never), how people did write RPG 
> programms with RPGII. Too many people are stuck at writing RPGII 
> logic, but using free format.
> One of the big problems are the tools!!! RDI (or how it might be named 
> today) is looking very modern, but under the cover LPEX logic is 
> working. For example: using Eclipse free Java Editor to write a new 
> method (= procedure), you could just use the not existing method, the 
> Editor would complain immediate "I don't know this method" and you 
> could choose "Then implement it"  and the editor writes for you all 
> formal stuff, including needed parameters and return value (there is 
> no prototype anyway, declaring the interface is sufficient).
>
> D*B