RE: WRKOBJ - Is this a bug or a feature?

midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>   8. WRKOBJ - Is this a bug or a feature? (Steve Landess)
>
>What gives?  Why the inconsistency between the two commands?

Most interesting to me is that I hit this problem just a day or two ago and was 
just as irritated. (Maybe ran into it in years past and simply forgot about it.)

I originally figured it was neither a "feature" nor a "bug", just the way it 
was programmed. But since you've made me think about it again, I think it's 
clearly a bug. The fact that command-line parms do get added to the command 
string argues that the "feature" was deliberately programmed in. And the fact 
that it gets added/concatenated to the command string rather than replacing the 
internal part of the string argues that it wasn't properly implemented.

I suspect that the programmer chose to specify DETAIL(*FULL) rather than 
allowing the common default DETAIL(*BASIC) because of the similarity between 
the resulting displays of [WRKOBJ ABC* *PGM] and [DSPOBJD ABC* *PGM].

I'd guess the attitude is "If you want to specify DETAIL(), then don't use 
WRKOBJ -- use DSPOBJD instead."

Tom Liotta

-- 
Tom Liotta
The PowerTech Group, Inc.
19426 68th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Phone  253-872-7788 x313
Fax    253-872-7904
http://www.powertech.com


__________________________________________________________________
Introducing the New Netscape Internet Service. 
Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register

Netscape. Just the Net You Need. 

New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp