the trick is ofscouse to have a naming standard like
FOOcmd
FOOex
FOO010
FOO010D
FOO020
FOOO02P
FOO020
To me, having a standard like that makes about as much sense as putting LIB
at the end of all library names, and Q at the beginning of all source file
names. The standard's only functional effect (IMO) is to chew up limited
resources (in this case a limit of 10 characters in a name).
As I said before, the system already "knows" that a command is a command and
a file is a file and a program is a program, .... So the "CMD" at the end of
its name only means that your command name length is limited to effectively
7 bytes. So you can't have a command name like, "RTVCUSTLVL," which is a
true shame, IMO. I notice that FOO010 doesn't have PGM or MOD or anything
else at its end, so let's assume it's a program. Now how would you name a
module so that it's differentiated from the program/SRVPGM derived from it,
or the source that specifies the exported names in that module? Would you
put SRVPGM at the end of such source, thereby limiting its effective name to
4 characters?
But at any given shop, the naming standard probably makes sense to that
shop. An you certainly don't have to justify yours to me. At the same time
it's good to understand why some like/employ multiple (meaningful) source
file names, while others like/employ something else.
Dennis Lovelady
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dennislovelady
--
"Never argue at the dinner table, for the one who is not hungry always gets
the best of the argument."
-- Richard Whately
midrange.com
