Re: An opinion please (ordering of command parameters)

Simon Coulter wrote:

That would depend on its conceptual function. If it's conceptually a copy operation then:

copy from-this to-that

If it's conceptually a merge operation then:

update this with that

To properly resolve this you need to decide the name of the command and the names of the keywords. Then you'll be able to resolve the appropriate keyword order.

Well, at this point,

UPDATEFOO SOURCELIB(FOO_TEST) TARGETLIB(FOO_PROD)
or
UPDATEFOO SOURCELIB(FOO_TEST) PRODLIB(FOO_PROD)
or
UPDATEFOO FROMLIB(FOO_TEST) TOLIB(FOO_PROD)

would be close enough for jazz, and conceptually, it's really neither a "copy" nor a "merge", although certainly closer to the former than the latter, as we are applying an updated format to the target/production library.

On the one hand, we have CPYLIB (as Elvis pointed out), and CPYF and CRTDUPOBJ (as Roger pointed out), and the convention of RPG MOVE, MOVEL, and Z-ADD statements, all going SOURCE TARGET.

But on the other hand, we have CHGVAR, CHGPGMVAR, CHGDTAARA, and so forth, and the MI CPYNV, CPYBLA, CPYBRA, and similar opcodes, and the opcodes of "true" assemblers, and the RPG EVAL statement, and assignment statements in BASIC, FORTRAN, COBOL, PL/I, Pascal, Java, C, and so forth, all going TARGET SOURCE.

--
JHHL