Re: Common routines and optional parameters

[Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, that's in essence what I'm doing. And I have no problem creating a 
convenience procedure for each basic combination.  The problem is the 
large number of parameters at the end.  If you have three, it's not 
bad.  When you have 5, or 7, or 9, the number of convenience functions 
gets ugly, especially since you have to give each one a separate name.

With everyone's input, though, I think I'm closing in on a solution.

On 4/2/2019 3:53 PM, Alan Campin wrote:
> Looking at this I think what are looking at is Polymorphism. The ability of
> Java or other languages to based on the type of parameters to know which
> procedure to call . RPG doesn't have it.
>
> That would seem to me if that is true you really only have a couple of
> options. Write a function for each type. Not really that big of a deal or
> do like you are doing of having one procedure that passes a constant type
> and the address of a variable and then you function figures out which value
> got called and call the proper function to call.
>
> i think just have a single function for each type would be simpler.