Re[2]: LVLCHK *NO

     In my last job, which was in a software house, LVLCHK(*NO) was 
     strictly verboten.  If a file had to be changed - even to tack a 
     single field on the end - all relevant programs were tracked down and 
     recompiled.  All such programs then became part of the fix to be 
     delivered.
     
     ____________
     Paul Cunnane
     The Learning Company
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: LVLCHK *NO
Author:  Colin Williams <Williamsc@technocrats.co.uk> at InterNet
Date:    01-10-99 12:10 pm


But what happens in the case where a programmer makes a change to a 
file, eg adding a field as part of an emergency fix, 
but does not recompile all the other programs that use it.
     
I wasn't saying that its the way I would do things, just explaining why 
some packages may use it.
I agree that it does cause problems.
     
     
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kahn, David [JNJFR] [mailto:DKahn1@JNJFR.JNJ.com] 
>Sent: Friday, October 01, 1999 10:48 AM
>To: 'RPG400-L@midrange.com'
>Subject: RE: LVLCHK *NO
>
>
>Colin,
>
>This use of LVLCHK(*NO) may be justifiable as a temporary 
>expedient in an
>emergency fix. But throughout a package? No way on earth would I load a 
>thing like that on any system I was responsible for.
+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---