Re: Using :requires to load some common routines
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 04:11:30 -0500, LesK <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Doesn't START start a new thread? If you want to replicate what the discussion
>> was about, wouldn't you have to do something like:
>> call inita
>> call initb
> As I read the thread there was no mention of the use of "call". And no
> one had distinguished between a "call" (which would stay within the
> existing rexx process) and something that starts a new process.
> We had also discussed the "first load of the required program" without
> mentioning the scope of "first".
> Since these sorts of actions run right to the heart of all the code
> that I've written in the past few years, I wanted to clarify when the
> statements about "first loaded" would be true, and when they were not
> For a horrific few minutes, I was wondering if the required program
> was loaded into memory shared across separate REXX processes, and the
> initialisation code ran only once.
> I don't mind separate processes sharing the same loaded code, but
> having the initialisation run only in the first process which required
> it would drive a coach and horses through most of my code.
Do I recall you're using Object Rexx, not ooRexx? If so, the 'one
initialization' improvement in ooRexx 4.0 wouldn't apply anyway. We're not
talking about reentrant assembler code :-)
Les (Change Arabic to Roman to email me)