/COPY one extra thing to look at (was: Defining a function key...)

>I don't think that it's a matter of which
>one is clearer but the amount of setup that
>one requires over the other, or the research
>into the /COPY member to figure it out,
>that is in question.

Does that mean that every single line of source code should be placed in a
single member?  After all, it's all in one place and therefore must be
easier to figure it out...  Okay, that's extreme, but Isn't that the
argument being made?  That separating code into multiple source members
makes it harder to work with?

I can't remember the last time I was able to look at a single source member
and completely understand the entire application.  One more source member
(the /COPY) doesn't add any more work to the mix after the first time I've
seen it.  "/copy qrpglesrc,StdKeyDef" shouldn't be difficult to use (setup)
or understand.  You can't tell me that you never look at the CL wrapper when
you're debugging an RPG problem.  You never need to refer to the DDS source?
DSPFD the printer file to check it's attributes?  All those individual
sources and objects need to be looked at and more if you want to guarantee
that you understand what's happening, right?

There are lots of people who don't like /COPY and I never really understood
why.  'Amount of setup' is much less with /COPY than typing in the code by
hand or finding the right member to copy from with SEU, and 'research into
the /COPY member' is a natural part of the rest of the research that already
happens.  Puzzling.  There must be some other reason, I think.

By the bye, the compiler listing  has the /COPY included.  Doesn't anybody
else beside me compile code anymore at least to get a cross reference?
  --buck