Re: Re[3]: CHGPF Question -Reply

[DAsmussen@xxxxxxx]

Buck,

In a message dated 97-09-20 04:48:08 EDT, you write:

> It's not the programs that are LVLCHK(*NO), it's the file.
>  If our intrepid programmer decides to put new fields in
>  the middle of the record layout, all she needs to do is
>  compile it *YES (or CHGPF it) and the programs will
>  4131 just like always...
>  
>  For the record: I would rather that I didn't use LVLCHK(*NO)
>  but once people have found a shortcut, it's difficult to convince
>  them to take the long, quality road instead of the short, bumpy
>  one.

Again, WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL about recompiling all of these programs?  Art
acted like I'd never worked a small account before, yet it is the small
accounts at which I found this easiest to do.  Where else can you yell down
the hall and say "everybody get out of Order Entry for a few minutes"?  The
"shortcut" should NOT be allowed!

IMHO,

Dean Asmussen
Enterprise Systems Consulting, Inc.
Fuquay-Varina, NC  USA
E-Mail:  DAsmussen@AOL.COM

"We are what we repeatedly do.  Excellence, then, is not an act, but a
habit." -- Aristotle
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com
|    and specify 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---