× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



How does separating them help manage the source?  I think it hinders it.

Rob Berendt
-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary 
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." 
Benjamin Franklin 




"Malchow, Grizzly" <GMalchow@automaticproducts.com>
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@midrange.com
01/21/2003 11:12 AM
Please respond to Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
 
        To:     "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" 
<midrange-l@midrange.com>
        cc: 
        Fax to: 
        Subject:        RE: QRPGSRC vs. QRPGLESRC


Might as well include the CL source while I'm at it. It just doesn't make 
any sense to me. I think it's poor source management. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tyler, Matt [mailto:mattt@wincofoods.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 9:37 AM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: RE: QRPGSRC vs. QRPGLESRC


There is no real good reason except for many commands default to 
QRPGLESRC. Just make a new QRPGSRC with 112 length and store both types of 
RPG there. RPG III compiler will accept the longer length. 

Thank you,
Matt Tyler
WinCo Foods, Inc
mattt@wincofoods.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Malchow, Grizzly [mailto:GMalchow@automaticproducts.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 08:18
To: midrange-l@midrange.com
Subject: QRPGSRC vs. QRPGLESRC

I'm supposed to create a source file named QRPGSRC that will be hold all 
of source files, both RPG and RPGILE. I've always kept the 2 source 
members in seperate source files. I.E. QRPGSRC and QRPGLESRC. I know 
QRPGLESRC has a longer record length. I'm supposed to create a QRPGSRC 
with a record lenght of 112. Everywhere I've been before has always kept 
the sources seperate. I don't think it's necesarily a good idea. I need a 
good reason to explain why we should not do this, other than industry 
standards, the differences in the code etc. 

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.