I also wasn't aware of the limit until I tried it. Since the question raised involved continuation, I simply tried the function with fewer operands but including continuation. When that worked, it was simply a matter of adding the others in until it failed.
Frankly, I came across the 20 argument limit simply by trying it out. Adam -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jantje. Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 3:53 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 14:31:18 -0700, Gerhard Adam <gada...@charter.net> wrote: >Just seems like a lot of discussion trying to pass 22 arguments, when the >limit is 20. > You're right. Only, as I was not aware of the existence of that limit... >After that it's merely a question of how you can convey the information using >whatever means you have available. > I am using now a different separator character (one I am rather sure will never occur in the value of the arguments to pass), glueing all arguments together into one and parsing them back out in the invoked function. That does the trick. Cheers, Jantje. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
