As far as the number of arguments changing, I will often write a subroutine with a few extra variables (FUTURE1, FUTURE2, FUTURE3) so that I do not need to find all the existing programs that call it and recompile them. It makes this sort of thing a piece of cake. The existing programs will likely not need to populate the arguments other than initialized to null.
John Israel Sent from my iPhone On Dec 3, 2012, at 9:28 PM, "Kate Stanton" <[email protected]> wrote: > I would hate to see that in our software, as it would be so hard to find > where a subroutine is used. > > On the odd occasion we use this form (eg call depends on transaction type), > we do the definition just above, so it can be found. > > In my experience, the number of parameters is more likely to change that > the subroutine name. > > On 4 December 2012 13:38, Wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I've not encountered this is my career previously, but now I'm seeing a >> system written almost entirely with the use of indirect calls in Universe >> BASIC. >> >> That is >> SOURCE = "*SOME.PROGRAM" >> ... >> CALL @SOURCE(INPUTS) >> >> Is there some advantage to the use of indirect calls that a system would >> be written entirely in this fashion? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> U2-Users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users >> > > > > -- > Kate Stanton > Walstan Systems Ltd > 4 Kelmarna Ave, Herne Bay, Auckland 1011, New Zealand > Phone: + 64 9 360 5310 Mobile: + 64 21 400 486 > Email: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
