Re: QTEMP not in library list

[Scott Klement <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

IMHO, it would be a very odd case where you'd want an application to 
refer to QTEMP when it normally refers to a production library.  In 
fact, I'd wager it's a programmer trying to test code.

In that situation, the user (programmer) could easily use OVRDBF or add 
QTEMP to the library list on the fly.

I don't think it's a good argument for having QTEMP in the QUSRLIBL 
sysval or even in the JOBD.

Let's face it, folks... the only reason QTEMP needs to be in the library 
list (aside from adding it on-the-fly for testing code) is because of 
all the poorly written software out there.  In this market space, poorly 
written software absolutely ABOUNDS -- or, at least, that's been my 
experience.



Crispin wrote:
> In general, that's probably a good idea. But what if, for example, you have
> a (CL) program that does some processing on a file. The application may want
> to use that program for the QTEMP version of the file, or for an Application
> library version of the file.