Re: Question about dcl-proc

The parm is part of the dcl-pi block, so it's indented wrt this block.
The block itself is part of the dcl-proc, so strictly it would have to be
indented wrt dcl-proc.
But then the body (i.e. the part after dcl-pi) should be indented like:

dcl-proc

dcl-pi
dcl-end

-body-

dcl-s field ind;

end-proc

Not sure I follow with this. The -body- is not part of the dcl-pi block,
therefore, it should not be indented wrt to the pi block. And I am pretty
sure you can not put the body ahead of the other declarations within a
procedure.

I prefer the RDi way:

dcl-proc
dcl-pi
end-pi

-additional declarations-

-body-

end-proc

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:59 AM, john erps <jacobus.erps@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The parm is part of the dcl-pi block, so it's indented wrt this block.
The block itself is part of the dcl-proc, so strictly it would have to be
indented wrt dcl-proc.
But then the body (i.e. the part after dcl-pi) should be indented like:

dcl-proc

dcl-pi
dcl-end

-body-

dcl-s field ind;

end-proc

but this more practical (and clearer):

dcl-proc
dcl-pi
dcl-end

-body-

dcl-s field ind;

end-proc

The dcl-proc and dcl-pi constructs shoud have been one declaration
construct.




On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:29 AM, <j.beckeringh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

wrote:

Hi John,

To me it is quite simple: procedure interface has its own keywords for
start and end, which should be placed between start and end of procedure
declaration. So they should be indented.

Isn't the parm-line between dcl-pi and end-pi part of the procedure
interface? So why is that one indented?

Maybe the dcl-proc could have been implemented more like other languages
as:

dcl-proc Proc (parm char(1) value) ind;

But it wasn't :-)

Joep Beckeringh
Software architect
Pantheon Automatisering B.V.
Heerenveen

john erps <jacobus.erps@xxxxxxxxx>

15-01-2018 10:10

Question about dcl-proc

Hi,

I notice that many specify a procedure as follows:

dcl-proc Proc;

dcl-pi *n ind;
parm char(1) value;
end-pi;

code (procedure body) follows

dcl-s x ind;

...

end-proc;

Instead of:

dcl-proc Proc;
dcl-pi *n ind;
parm char(1) value;
end-pi;

code (procedure body) follows

dcl-s x ind;

...

end-proc;

The difference being that in the first example the dcl-pi part has the

same

indentation level as the procedure body. For me it would seem that the
second example is more logical, because dcl-pi is part of the procedure
declaration, not part of the procedure body, and should have the
indentation level of the procedure declaration.

Any thoughts?

--
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

--
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