Re: Will IBM ever expand system object names?

[x y <xy6581@xxxxxxxxx>]

I see no chance of the 10-character limit changing in this operating
system.  I would be surprised if a new cloud-based, all-graphic OS
compatible with what we're currently using didn't adopt a more flexible
object naming approach.

Soapbox:
It's sad that we are forced to deal with holdovers from long, long ago.
One example: the limit on command prompts lives on today--it's from the
days of the System/38's 16x64 console.  If more customers had complained, I
suspect IBM would have made a change (which I'd guess is trivial) to fix
this one annoyance.

Every executable I deploy has a green-screen command interface; this makes
manual and automated unit testing demonstrably easier (especially for
service programs).  Every batch job executes a command and some parameters
are conditionally prompted.  Trying to fit a meaningful description in 30
characters is an exercise in frustration!



On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 6:19 AM Javier Sanchez <
javiersanchezbarquero@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> With SQL objects this is already possible, and sometime in the future,
> maybe we will be able to do everything using only SQL, which would be
> fantastic.
>
> What about in the meantime we could have expanded the current 10-char
> system object name length to something longer?
>
> This is one item on my wish list, and I could also consider including the
> underscore character as a valid starting one for such names.
>
> JS
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>
> Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
> questions.