Call prototype vs Invoke was Re: CoBOL moved to OO

From: Clark F. Morris, Jr. (cfmtech_at_istar.ca)
Date: 01/18/04

  • Next message: Thomas A. Li: "Re: how do i get a 4 digit year to appear in cobol" 
    Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:18:23 -0400

    William M. Klein wrote:
    > Thane,
    > I still don't (fully?) understand (internalize) the difference between your
    > OO:
    >
    >
    >>I need this done - you handle this exclusively - you do it and tell me
    >>about the results.
    >>
    >>It's also like:
    >>
    >>I need information with which to modify MY data - I'll go get it!
    >
    >
    > and "traditional" MODULARIZED COBOL programming where you:
    >
    > Call do-something routine passing it something (or not) and asking it to do
    > what "do-something" does
    >
    > or
    >
    > Call (perform) some-routine to return (in a parameter or even a RETURNED or
    > EXTERNAL variable) the information that "some-routine" is expected to know
    > about.
    >
    > With Call-prototypes in the 2002 Standard, there is even "protection" from
    > passing a module something that it shouldn't get - or requesting returned
    > information that you shouldn't see.
    >
    > I am *not* trying to "fight" OO "philosophy" for applications that are designed
    > (from initial concept) for such, I simply (still) don't really "GET" what the
    > fundamental difference is.
    >
    What is the advantage of having both CALL prototype and the INVOKE
    construct?

  • Next message: Thomas A. Li: "Re: how do i get a 4 digit year to appear in cobol"