Re: QSHELL commands (was: Stmf copy with add)

Hi Simon:

Good topic.  I see your point about keeping the related parameters
together, but is it really all that important to do so, given that there is
a "prompt position" specification available on the PARM command?

Personally, I think IBM's done a fair job of deciding where to put the
breaks between positional and non-positional parameters.  And when they
haven't, I tend to just write a command like it with my choices, placed in
SYSLIBL above QSYS.  But just for the sake of argument, is there another
reason?

Thanks.
Dennis, who wanted desperately to say, "Come on, Simon, tell us what you
really think" regarding that QSHELL discussion... but felt it was already
too late.  :)





"Simon Coulter" <shc@flybynight.com.au>@midrange.com on 10/16/2001 09:23:16
AM

Please respond to midrange-l@midrange.com

Sent by:  midrange-l-admin@midrange.com


To:   midrange-l@midrange.com
cc:
Subject:  Re: QSHELL commands (was: Stmf copy with add)


M
Hello Doug,

You wrote:
>Personally, I like to use the default of MAXPOS(*NOMAX).  But IBM, in
their
>infinite wisdom, sets lower limits on many of their commands.

They do that for a reason.  The reason is that they can insert new keywords
where appropriate without breaking existing code.  If all the keywords were
positional then someone somewhere would code a CL program that way and IBM
would have to put any new keywords at the end to avoid breaking that
program.

Forcing keywords for the less common parameters allows IBM to insert a new
keyword next to a possibly related existing keyword.  (Always presuming
that
the designer of the command actually has a clue about why this stuff is
done
the way it is.)

Regards,
Simon Coulter.