Re: Source name vs Object name was: module/pgm analysis (lines of code)

<snip>
Especially in a shop that
might use a 'C' suffix for CLLE or an 'R' for RPGLE - the actual
program is neither, and I've created the program without a suffix.
</snip>
I tend not to use this C or R stuff. I actually prefer QPGMSRC vs
QRPGLESRC and QCLSRC. I see no value in separating by language.
Especially after two people named their programs the same and kept
clobbering each other: One RPG, the other CL. Separating by object is
acceptable. Like QPGMSRC vs QCMDSRC. It's not necessarily bad form to
name the command after the program.

<snip>
Not always - another approach is to use the name of the entry module
- eh - you pays your money, etc.
</snip>
No way in a multi module program. Too easy for the inept to think that a
simple recompile of that first module's source member with CRTBNDRPG
instead of CRTRPGMOD will suffice. Then again, the inept would probably
see no ORDX001 source member and assume that they can create a new member
named that and compile that. Which might kill the ORDX001 program
composed of a couple of different modules. Did I mention that the
previous offender changed his defaults in PDM to not warn him to replace
an existing program?

<snip>
Now once you're down to the module level, I submit that the names and
objects should match for simplest maintenance.
</snip>
I can accept that.


Rob Berendt