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
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.