Re: QTEMP position in library list -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: QTEMP position in library list
From: Sam_L <lennon_s_j@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 13:14:29 -0400
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@lists.midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

General rule was that in production code any use of objects in QTEMP had to hardcode QTEMP, not rely on the library list. No other library was hardcoded, short of an act of congress.

Then it doesn't really matter first or last, but I prefer last since I've seen occasional code that erroneously picked up an object in QTEMP left by sloppy use earlier in the job.

Sam

On 7/1/2022 7:23 AM, Richard Reeve wrote:

All,

I've always been of the mindset that qtemp should be higher in the
library list than qgpl. Do you all have any thoughts/insight about this?

All the best,

Richard Reeve

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.