Re: Setting on *inlr in a service program's module..

[Scott Klement <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This isn't a question of morality.  It isn't "right" or "wrong".  It's 
just a question of how you want the code to behave.

If the module has a cycle-main procedure in it, then *INLR causes things 
to happen in the cycle, such as closing the files, clearing the variable 
values upon next call, etc.  So whether you code it really depends on 
whether you want those things to happen.

If the module doesn't have a cycle main procedure (which is probably the 
most common) then *INLR doesn't do anything, so it really doesn't matter.

-SK


On 11/10/2017 2:29 PM, Robert Rogerson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there anything wrong with setting on *inlr in a module in a service 
> program?  I never do this, I just code a return.  But I'm reviewing a 
> colleagues code and I honestly don't know if it's wrong to set on *inlr, 
> or if it doesn't make a difference.
>
> The procedure in question has 3  files which are defined a static.  My 
> understanding is that by coding static the file(s) are opened when the 
> procedure is first called and remain open until explicitly closed or the 
> activation group ends.  So by setting on *inlr in the procedure is this 
> going to close the file(s) which would defeat the purpose of coding the 
> files as static?
>
> I'm not sure if it is a bad practice to set on *lnlr in a subprocedure 
> or it doesn't really have any affect on performance.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob