Re: subRecord fix

[Andrew Johnson <anj@aps.anl.gov>]

> It's just that it doesn't seem to make much sense to pass the
> 'process' pointer out there - or do I miss something essential here? 

I believe it's there for subroutines that want to cause asynchronous 
processing - if the user subroutine sets psub->pact true before returning 
because of a background I/O operation, it will need to call the record's 
process() routine again when that I/O operation is complete.  Passing it 
into the init subroutine is simpler for the user than requiring them to 
look up the process routine than using a construct that may at one time 
have been

  (((struct rset*)psub->rset)->process)(psub);

which is a bit ugly and complicated if someone is new to C programming. 
The cast is no longer needed, but it might have been back in the old GTACS 
days.

- Andrew
--
Edsger W. Dijkstra, 1930-2002: "The use of COBOL cripples the mind;
its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offence."