Skip to Main Content
IBM Power Ideas Portal


This portal is to open public enhancement requests against IBM Power Systems products, including IBM i. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).


Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas
  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.


Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.

ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

Status Submitted
Workspace IBM i
Categories Languages - RPG
Created by Guest
Created on Dec 1, 2025

Extend prototyped procedure calls with "keyword parameters"

SQL has the nice feature, to use optionally use keyword parameters instead of positioned parameters. My idea is, also extend RPG prototyped procedure calls with the option to use keyword parameters.

Imagine the following procedure prototype:

dcl-pr myProc;
parm1 char(1) const;
parm2 char(1) const options(*nopass:*omit);
parm3 char(1) const options(*nopass:*omit);
end-pi;

Today we can / have to call it like in the following examples:

myProc('A':'B':'C');
myProc('A');
myProc('A':'B');
myProc('A':*omit:'C');

And this should still be possible.

I propose to extend the RPG syntax, to also allow called like the following:

myProc(
parm1 => 'A',
parm2 => 'B',
parm3 => 'C'
// all parameters supplied
);
myProc(
parm1 => 'A'
// 2nd and 3rd parameter is ommitted
);
myProc(
parm1 => 'A',
parm2 => 'B'
// 3rd parameter is ommitted
);
myProc(
parm1 => 'A',
parm3 => 'C'
// 2nd parameter is ommitted
);
myProc(
parm2 => 'B',
parm3 => 'C',
parm1 => 'A'
// parameters "out-of-order"
);

Of course when a non-omissible parameter is omitted, the compiler still has to produce an error message. Also if any data type mismatch occur.

This new syntax would have the following advantages:

  1. better readability

  2. still backward compatible as omitted parameters can be checked with %passed(...)

  3. no need for new prototypes - but not possible of unnamed parameters are used in the prototype

  4. inline with SQL syntax

  5. inline with other modern languages like Python, Ruby or Swift

Idea priority Medium