Syntax Error after creating enhancements for subroutine

Question

Problem:
Creating enhancement sections gives a syntax error when creating enhancement options and implementations for a subroutine and then ceating enhancement options and implementations for the call to that same subroutine.
<p>
Syntax Error:
"Different number of parameters in FORM and PERFORM (routine: SET_LAYOUT, number of formal parameters: 2, number of actual parameters: 1)
</p>
<p>
Here's the following scenario:
</p>
<p>
A subroutine is defined in a program.
The subroutine is called within the same program.
</p>
<p>
I then executed these steps:
<br>     1. Defined an enhancement section around the subroutine definition
<br>     2. Defined an enhancement section around the subroutine call.
<br>     3. Implemented the enhancement section around the subroutine definition and add an additional parameter.
</p>
<p>
     Currently, this gives a syntax error as expected, since the call to the subroutine needs 1 more parameter.
</p>
<p>
     4. Implemented the enhancement section for the subroutine call.  I change the call in the implementation so it passes the new parameter.
</p>
<p>
A syntax check to this gives an error.  The syntax checker is not only checking the new implementation, but also the original subroutine that should have been overwritten.
</p>
<p>
The enhancement sections use the same enhancement spot, and the enhancement implementations use the same implementation.
</p>
<p>
I tried various combinations of using different enhancement spots and/or implementations, but all give the same syntax error.  I tried separating the subroutine in a different include and  retried my testing, but it still gave the same syntax error.
</p>
<p>
Here's the sample code I first created to try troubleshooting the problem:
</p>
<p>
<pre>
ENHANCEMENT-SECTION ZEP_Z_MICHAEL_02 SPOTS ZES_Z_MICHAEL .
     PERFORM set_layout
          CHANGING
          wa_layout.
END-ENHANCEMENT-SECTION.
$$-Start: ZEP_Z_MICHAEL_02----
$$
ENHANCEMENT 2  ZEI_TEST_SECTIONS.
     "inactive version
     PERFORM set_layout
     using 'X'
          CHANGING
          wa_layout.
ENDENHANCEMENT.
$$-End:   ZEP_Z_MICHAEL_02----
$$
ENHANCEMENT-SECTION ZEP_Z_MICHAEL_01 SPOTS ZES_Z_MICHAEL STATIC .
FORM set_layout
CHANGING p_wa_layout TYPE slis_layout_alv.
p_wa_layout-zebra = 'X'.
wa_layout-no_colhead = 'X'..
p_wa_layout-colwidth_optimize ='X'.
wa_layout-window_titlebar = 'Woot'.
ENDFORM. "set_layout
END-ENHANCEMENT-SECTION.
$$-Start: ZEP_Z_MICHAEL_01----
$$
ENHANCEMENT 1  ZEI_TEST_SECTIONS.
     "inactive version
FORM set_layout
using p_test type boolean
CHANGING p_wa_layout TYPE slis_layout_alv.
p_wa_layout-zebra = 'X'.
wa_layout-no_colhead = 'X'..
p_wa_layout-colwidth_optimize ='X'.
wa_layout-window_titlebar = 'Woot'.
ENDFORM. "set_layout
ENDENHANCEMENT.
$$-End:   ZEP_Z_MICHAEL_01----
$$
</pre>
</p>
<p>
Please let me know if you think I am doing something wrong. 
</p>
<p>
Thanks, <br>
Mike
</p>
Edited by: Michael Herman on Mar 8, 2010 8:11 PM

Answer 1

Yes, Sandra.  That is what did and it worked with no syntax errors!
I'm not sure if this is getting off topic or not, but the SAP documentation(taken from the SAP help after pressing F1 on the keyword static in ERP6) seems misleading:
"The STATIC addition is intended for the enhancement of data declarations, while the statement ENHANCEMENT-POINT without the STATIC addition is designed for the enhancement of executable coding."
I would think the enhancement section ZEP_Z_MICHAEL_02 would fall under the category of executable code, while the enhancement section ZEP_Z_MICHAEL_01 would fall under the category of declarative code.
Unfortunately, all the SAP enhancement sections I come accross are dynamic.  The SAP help explains the reasoning for this:
"In contrast to the statement ENHANCEMENT-POINT, the addition STATIC of the statement ENHANCEMENT-SECTION can only be used with maximum caution for changes of data declarations, because a replacement and no completion is carried out. Especially application development within SAP should not use the addition STATIC at all with ENHANCEMENT-SECTION as the change will be active in the entire customer system. "
I do not know what the word "completion" means in the previous quote, so I can't determine why it would matter.  Regardless, if a developer wanted to change a standard subroutine declaration, they would also have to mod an enhancement section to change it to static.  This seems to defeat the purpose of using enhancements, but maybe this scenario is not what enhancements were intended for.