|
But wouldn't those type of options be better suited as H-spec keywords? Such as Optimize(), Option(), etc? Some of these H-spec keywords are available as compile parms, but some are not. Such as ActGrp(). Rather than treat these as some other type of animal (command override), why not treat them as their similar counterparts? ... And why would it take longer (10 years) to create a new H-spec or a modified F-spec, rather than a completely new type of animal (command override? command default?) On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:23:52 -0500, Lim Hock-Chai <lim.hock-chai@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > keyword is nice for the example you have. But if the thing that you want to > override is part of the compile command parm, I think, it would be nice for > ibm to provide a /ovrparm that is dynamic enough to override it without > developer have to ask for a keyword and wait to 10 years <g> to get it. > > -- "Enter any 11-digit prime number to continue..."
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
