On Aug 22, 2018, at 1:37 PM, Doug Englander <denglander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a way to have the compiler enforce [DCL-PR] prototype definitions against its associated DCL-PI definition? Earlier versions of RPG [i.e. maybe before V7R1] the compiler would give a message when the DCL-PR specs for a subprocedure in a module did not agree with the corresponding DCL-PI specs. Now that the compiler rules have been relaxed, it is now easier to have the DCL-PI and corresponding DCL-PR specs to become out of sync. For example, I have a DCL-PI in a module that does not accept parameters and just returns a value. I have changed the DCL-PR specs that are in a copybook, and they are pulled in, but they have defined parameter values being passed in. The compiler does not give any message about this. Does anyone know if there is a way to get the compiler to enforce the definitions like it used to do?
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,
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
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