RE: QTEMP not in library list

I agree. Thanks for the correction.

Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:55 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: QTEMP not in library list

Aaron

Scott's comment was about whether QTEMP should be in the library list - not
whether to use it for temporary objects. You've responded with saying he
says NOT to use QTEMP at all. He did not say that.

Too much air guitar, man!

Regards
Vern

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Aaron Bartell" <albartell@xxxxxxxxx>

Scott summarized his viewpoints with the following, which my statement

came

from...

" Let's face it, folks... the only reason QTEMP needs to be in the library

list (aside from adding it on-the-fly for testing code) is because of
all the poorly written software out there. In this market space, poorly
written software absolutely ABOUNDS -- or, at least, that's been my
experience."


So maybe I should instead respond with this: Scott, do you think QTEMP
should NOT be used for temporary objects that a programmer wants to have
auto-cleaned-up at the end of the job? I thought there were good points on

why a vendor wouldn't want to use QTEMP. Many times I rely on QTEMP when I

am doing professional services contracts, and so far it has worked quite
well for me. I would chalk QTEMP usage up to "it depends" and "use it to
your benefit, but understand the drawbacks".

Thoughts?
Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com