Re: 7.1 and RPG prototypes

... welcome to the club!
IMHO the biggest problem would be the !!!change!!! of existing code, used by the current compile process. some parts are done at compiletime, others at binding time. At compiletime there is not enough information what should be bound later to resolve imports exported procedures and variables (same symbol could have multiple exports). During the binding process you don't have full information about the work the compiler has already done. Today the link between the two processes are the prototypes (here the programmer tells the compiler, wich module should (hopefully) resolve the needed imports). Maybe the module doesn't even exist at this time, maybe it will exist later, with a changed prototype - but this won't work as expected at runtime.

Why not simply open up the possibility to use the module name instead of the Prototype as an alternative??? Some compiler directive /bind moduleName??? Who wants to use it, has to provide the module at compiletime (It's no good idea to compile the module to qtemp as CRTBNDxxx does anyway).

@Procedure pointers: I use this rather often. One of the reasons is, that it's more stable as you bind by name, not by position!

Dieter

<John>
I don't see any of those as "technical issues". Those are just a
matter of bikeshedding. Picking a syntax. Picking a serialization
format. Maybe picking semantics in some cases. But no tough nuts to
crack there. (Am I sounding like Dieter?)
</John>