Re: QSHELL commands (was: Stmf copy with add) -- MIDRANGE-L

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Douglas Handy wrote:

> >Sticking with the "cat" example from before, how does one ...
> >cp file1 file2 file3 file4 outputfile
>
> This isn't a fair example, because CPYF does not have the same options as CP.
>
> CPYF (file1 file2 file3 file4) outputfile *n *n *replace *yes
>
> would do it if CPYF accepted a list for the from file.  But it doesn't.  By 
>the
> same token, CPYF has options which CP does not.  How do you tell CP to append 
>an
> input file to an existing output file, rearranging the fields to match the
> output file, dropping those which don't exist in the new file, but selecting
> only those records which match multiple criteria like FIELDA > 3.14 and FIELDB
> <= FIELDC, but only if they are between relative record numbers 123 to 456?

Now this is an interesting comment because it reveals the difference
between os/400 and other systems I have worked with:  os/400 commands are
really database commands (i.e. they care about record relation) whereas
commands from other systems are not.  Of course we all know this already.
The os/400 CPYF command isn't the same thing as a unix cp command.  Maybe
a better example would involve CRTDUPOBJ?  Can you think of an example to
do the above with CRTDUPOBJ?

I am enlightened about the ability to leave off keywords.  I would also
like to leave off unused parms instead of typing *n.  I guess that is why
I personally prefer a syntax of:

command [options] <input> <output>

> Whoa!  Users should not need to key commands very often, if ever.

Why not?  Shouldn't a user be able to use the system?

> >Hmm... and my experiece tells me that I will type in a thousand more
> >commands on the command line than I will read in a program, simply because
> >I read a program a few times, but *interact* with the system all day.
>
> If you type a thousand times more commands on the command line then you read 
>in
> a program or script, then I'd suggest you are using the system different than
> many of us.  <g>

Perhaps :)  But maybe the reason we use '5' on the PDM screen to view a
source member is because the syntax to type in the equivalent command to
do so is overly cumbersome.  I only say this to have something to think
about, not to start any kind of useage battle.  In other words, how would
the user interaction be different if the commands were easier(in my
opinion)/different(i.e. harder in other peoples opinion) to enter?

> But because the terminal is block mode, you don't have all the capabilities of
> something like DOSKEY, or the various Fx keys used from a DOS command line to
> copy just part of a command line, etc.

doskey?  what's that?  I really don't use DOS or windows very much so I am
unfamiliar with a lot of that stuff.  I do like to think that I know tcsh
and bash pretty well, though (I *like* to think that - who knows if it is
really true).

James Rich
james@eaerich.com