Re: Why define files internally (was: What bugs you about KLISTs in RPG IV?)

["James W. Kilgore" <qappdsn@xxxxxxx>]

Carol,

I'm not defending Jeop's usage of program defined files, but just to add that 
this
practice does -not- mean that the files are not externally defined.

Now for supporting customization to a standard package, in each file we added an
alpha filler field.  Instead of regening the data base for every newly added 
field,
we would make this filler field a data structure and add new fields there.

So in our shop, unlike Joep's, we use the external definition but have internal
representation for nonstandard fields.
This works for a onesy/twosy addition.  Usually another file containing the new
fields is preferred over messing with the standard files.

The only benefit(?) I can see from program described files is that you can work 
from
a source listing instead of a compile listing.


To each, their own.


Carol Bastien wrote:

> Joep - I shudder at the thought of internally defined fields.  I can't even
> begin to list all the functionality you lose by doing that.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the RPG/400 Discussion Mailing List!  To submit a new         *
* message, send your mail to "RPG400-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe   *
* from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify       *
* 'unsubscribe RPG400-L' in the body of your message.  Questions should *
* be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com          *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *