Re: Creating a physical AND Logical file

[Tom Liotta <qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Evan Harris wrote:

> But as I said in my other email, searching was not the primary reason 
> for having it at the bottom of the list in the case I mentioned.

Hi, Evan.

I'm not clear on what that reason was. The main item that I saw was:

"The only argument with any merit at all I have ever heard for putting
QTEMP at the bottom of the library list was that this made it more
difficult to accidentally access a copy or subset of a production
object and made it more obvious that a copy or override of an object
in QTEMP was being used by virtu of the hard coding."

But if that's the reason, then why have QTEMP in *LIBL? Remove QTEMP and 
there won't be any significant chance of accidentally hitting something 
in QTEMP. The duplicate would only be accessed by explicit qualification 
or override. So why have QTEMP in *LIBL if that's the reason?

If users have the ability to make copies, they can make them into QTEMP 
regardless of position. But if QTEMP isn't in *LIBL, the copy won't be 
mistaken for the original unless an override is in effect (or explicit 
qualification). And if overrides (or qualification) are allowed, then 
again position isn't relevant -- nor is existence in *LIBL.

As for it being more obvious, it still would only be accessed by 
override or qualification if QTEMP was at the bottom. And neither of 
those need QTEMP in *LIBL. The obviousness of override or qualification 
remains the same when QTEMP is not in *LIBL.

No?

Tom Liotta