Re: Cobol / CL question

[Tom Liotta <qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon Paris wrote:
> On 12-Mar-09, at 4:00 PM, Chris Chambers wrote:
>
> > I would always call a CL program from within the COBOL.
> >
> > QCMDEXC is just so ugly
>
> And CL is therefore by definition "pretty"?  You are jesting surely.

No, but then compiled CL has the CL compiler to help with a number 
of things. Granted, for trivial stuff like individual overrides, a 
compiled module is more than what's needed. But I see too many 
instances of multiple commands being constructed in strings and then 
passed on to be 'interpreted' by QCMDEXC/QCAPCMD, plus the 
supporting code to retrieve inner messages, plus excess code to 
handle quoted values... etc.

A compiled CL module makes a lot of those things so much nicer. It 
also allows some modularity, as well as providing an object that can 
be tested independently.

This comment is more about _overuse_ of QCMDEXC/QCAPCMD than 
appropriate use. Setting an override seems appropriate use.

Tom Liotta