Re: An opinion please (ordering of command parameters)

On 23/05/2009, at 9:28 AM, James H. H. Lampert wrote:

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.

If you settle for FROMLIB and TOLIB (which would be desired for consistency) then you should use the order from and to.

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.

Your command is CL so you should follow the CL conventions.

RPG op-codes work that way because of the structure of the C-spec.

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.

Your function isn't an assignment so I wouldn't even consider these as precedents.


Regards,
Simon Coulter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FlyByNight Software OS/400, i5/OS Technical Specialists

http://www.flybynight.com.au/
Phone: +61 2 6657 8251 Mobile: +61 0411 091 400 /"\
Fax: +61 2 6657 8251 \ /
X
ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail / \
--------------------------------------------------------------------