Re: Egads! An area in which the precompiler people surpassed the compiler people!

[Hans Boldt <boldt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hans,
>
> I think I understand what PPGENOPT is.  I don't think that is what Aaron 
> is asking for.  Because on PPGENOPT you still have to put that on your 
> compilation command.  And, if you're not using a change management tool, 
> then you, and the rest of your staff, have to remember that whenever you 
> compile a program, be it from:  PDM, CODE, WDSC, tool-of-the-day.
>
> H specs get by that crud.
>
> Don't worry Hans, I'm pretty sure that the preprocessor people will come 
> out with options that should be available via SET OPTION but will come up 
> with the same excuse that you have on TGTRLS.
>
> Rob Berendt

After reading Aaron's replies yesterday, I realized that PPGENOPT 
wasn't what he was looking for.

In retrospect, I think we may have missed the mark in adding the 
compile options to the H-Spec. Perhaps we should have implemented 
that feature a little differently, perhaps with some different type 
of directive that must be coded immediately at the beginning of the 
source member (just like the "shebang" line in a Unix script). That 
way, the command processor could first read those first few source 
lines before determining how to proceed.

Anyways, I'll add that to our ever growing "proposed enhancements" 
file. I don't think what we've done so far precludes any additional 
improvements in this particular area. It just may be a bit confusing 
that some command options would go into the H-Spec and some would go 
into a new "command options" area. So don't expect anything any time 
soon.

Cheers! Hans