RE: QRPGSRC vs. QRPGLESRC

[rob@xxxxxxxxx]

How does separating them help manage the source?  I think it hinders it.

Rob Berendt
-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary 
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." 
Benjamin Franklin 




"Malchow, Grizzly" <GMalchow@automaticproducts.com>
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@midrange.com
01/21/2003 11:12 AM
Please respond to Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
 
        To:     "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" 
<midrange-l@midrange.com>
        cc: 
        Fax to: 
        Subject:        RE: QRPGSRC vs. QRPGLESRC


Might as well include the CL source while I'm at it. It just doesn't make 
any sense to me. I think it's poor source management. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tyler, Matt [mailto:mattt@wincofoods.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 9:37 AM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: RE: QRPGSRC vs. QRPGLESRC


There is no real good reason except for many commands default to 
QRPGLESRC. Just make a new QRPGSRC with 112 length and store both types of 
RPG there. RPG III compiler will accept the longer length. 

Thank you,
Matt Tyler
WinCo Foods, Inc
mattt@wincofoods.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Malchow, Grizzly [mailto:GMalchow@automaticproducts.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 08:18
To: midrange-l@midrange.com
Subject: QRPGSRC vs. QRPGLESRC

I'm supposed to create a source file named QRPGSRC that will be hold all 
of source files, both RPG and RPGILE. I've always kept the 2 source 
members in seperate source files. I.E. QRPGSRC and QRPGLESRC. I know 
QRPGLESRC has a longer record length. I'm supposed to create a QRPGSRC 
with a record lenght of 112. Everywhere I've been before has always kept 
the sources seperate. I don't think it's necesarily a good idea. I need a 
good reason to explain why we should not do this, other than industry 
standards, the differences in the code etc.