Re: QTEMP cleanup

[Buck <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx>]

rob wrote:

> I'm not so sure I'd solely rely on the end of the job doing my cleanup of 
> QTEMP objects.
> I'm not saying that it won't do so.  My concern is if someone injects your 
> program in the middle of another job stream.  For example if your program 
> creates a file called TEMPFILE and now it gets added to the middle of a 
> job stream where there was already a TEMPFILE in QTEMP then you're toast.

I had no idea there was this controversy over QTEMP in *LIBL.  I got 
burnt badly, many years ago bu the thinking that I could understand the 
job by looking at individual programs in isolation.  I think the last 
time I injected a program into a job stream without looking at the 
program in an existing job stream was 1979 or so.

All of the objections and counter-objections seem predicated on the idea 
that a programmer commonly modifies a job stream (interactive jobs 
included) without looking at the whole job first.  Does that happen in 
the real world?  I'd have been fired if I made that mistake twice.