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

I think it is more than bad form, it is dangerous. Recently we had a
programmer write a service program without the NOMAIN and he used a *INLR
so we ended up with a service program using the cycle. Unreal. Service
program should always be NOMAIN and never, ever use a *INLR.

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Justin Taylor <JUSTIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'd call it bad form, but that's about it.



-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Rogerson [mailto:rogersonra@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 2:29 PM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Setting on *inlr in a service program's module..

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


--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (RPG400-L)
mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at https://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.

Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate
link: http://amzn.to/2dEadiD