54 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
54 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
|
=== Duplicate: RSPEC-1897
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== Relates: RSPEC-1897
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2014-10-29T13:21:17Z Ann Campbell Wrote:
|
||
|
|
Assigned to you for validating
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2014-10-30T17:27:00Z Pierre-Yves Nicolas Wrote:
|
||
|
|
I think that this rule should also be applied to the following code where the PLIST is implicit:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
----
|
||
|
|
C CALL 'MYPROG'
|
||
|
|
C PARM ZipCode
|
||
|
|
C PARM City
|
||
|
|
----
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
In such case, the compliant code would be:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
----
|
||
|
|
D MYPROG PR ExtPgm('MyProgram')
|
||
|
|
D ZipCode 5I Const
|
||
|
|
D City 20A Const
|
||
|
|
...
|
||
|
|
/free
|
||
|
|
MYPROG(ZipCode:City);
|
||
|
|
/end-free
|
||
|
|
----
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2014-11-03T13:02:49Z Ann Campbell Wrote:
|
||
|
|
\[~pierre-yves.nicolas] this looks to me like the calling code, rather than the declaration. Once a sub-proc has been specified with a prototype, do you then have the choice of invoking it with a PLIST?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2014-11-03T13:28:23Z Pierre-Yves Nicolas Wrote:
|
||
|
|
My previous comment was about code calling another program. It seems possible to call a program with a PLIST even if the main procedure of that program is defined with a prototype. I was able to compile and execute something like that.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2014-11-04T13:44:02Z Ann Campbell Wrote:
|
||
|
|
\[~pierre-yves.nicolas], your code samples incorporated (I hope) correctly & minor wording change made in description. See what you think now.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
BTW, I 'edited' your comment to be able to copy the code samples, but no actual changes made.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2014-11-04T14:21:19Z Pierre-Yves Nicolas Wrote:
|
||
|
|
In the second case example code which I provided, the compliant solution has to be understood as a whole: the call to MYPROG in free form uses the prototype which is defined in the D specs. However, in the new version of the rule compliant solution, the comment line "* or in free-format:" seems to indicate that the lines just above and the lines just after are alternatives.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Moreover, in that new version of the compliant solution, the prototype (D specs containing "PR") for "MYPROG" is defined twice.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2014-11-04T15:50:21Z Ann Campbell Wrote:
|
||
|
|
\[~pierre-yves.nicolas], clearly I'm confused. Would you correct the code samples, please?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
=== On 2014-11-04T16:10:53Z Pierre-Yves Nicolas Wrote:
|
||
|
|
I think the examples make more sense now.
|
||
|
|
|