RE: Compile error when using field in a subfield data structure

Hans,
I think a free-format I/O spec is not necessary. We already have a pretty
good D spec, why not just allow that to be used for (at least) Input specs?
Problem solved.
I agree, all new DS's should be Qual'd. I'm not a fan of Header specs that
don't port back to Pre-releases (or any enhancement that doesn't port back
to VxR1 of the version boundary for that matter). But on the point of DIM,
if it is used on a DS line, it must be qualified or you get a compiler
error. Hence, QUAL should be implied when DS/DIM is used and it should be
PTF'd back to V5R1.
As another person said in this thread, RPGIV's inconsistencies are becoming
too difficult to teach inexperienced RPG IV programmers. This is just one
more item that contributes to that perspective.
The world QUALIFIED means Agony in RPG IV as it is too long <g>, but it is
not a show-stopper. In the future, you might want to consider passing the
keyword names and built-in function names by a few outsiders.  (e.g.,
%SUBxxx() is a poor choice since it implies the word "subtract". Again, QUAL
vs QUALIFIED is not a show-stopper, I remember reviewing the OVERLAY keyword
when it was just "OVER" and strongly opposed it and we got OVERLAY out of
that. I think OVERLAY is the right name for that keyword. Perhaps it is my
history of writing CMD definition source, QUAL is the CMD statement to
declare a qualified name. 
-Bob Cozzi