Re: QSRLSAVF format SAVF0100

[Joep Beckeringh <joep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob,

The point is that with length notation the correctness of a subfield depends on 
the correctness of other subfields and that is an unnecessary dependence. With 
position notation all the information is in one line. I like Carsten's 
suggestion; it uses length notation and is independent as well.

Joep Beckeringh


Bob Cozzi wrote:
> I understand that issue, it shifts everything up X bytes.
> But the OVERLAY keyword can often resolve that issue, but why might you
> comment-out a subfield in an API DS anyway? Certainly during testing this
> may occur, but not during production. And anyway if you did, it may be
> because you inserted too many fields or a duplicate. So you comment it out
> and now, assuming from-to column notation, you have to adjust every single
> subfield that follows it.
> My philosophy on this is to only use length-notation and look at from-to
> columns as nearly the same style coding as conditioning indicators EXCEPT in
> the situation when you've /COPY'd the code from QSYSINC or elsewhere (that
> is, from someone else's code base). Sure it would work, but do you really
> want to do that? 
>
> -Bob