RE: QTEMP not in library list

["Aaron Bartell" <albartell@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree.  Thanks for the correction.

Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:55 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: QTEMP not in library list

Aaron

Scott's comment was about whether QTEMP should be in the library list - not
whether to use it for temporary objects. You've responded with saying he
says NOT to use QTEMP at all. He did not say that.

Too much air guitar, man!

Regards
Vern

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Aaron Bartell" <albartell@xxxxxxxxx> 

> Scott summarized his viewpoints with the following, which my statement
came 
> from... 
>
> " 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." 
>
>
> So maybe I should instead respond with this: Scott, do you think QTEMP 
> should NOT be used for temporary objects that a programmer wants to have 
> auto-cleaned-up at the end of the job? I thought there were good points on

> why a vendor wouldn't want to use QTEMP. Many times I rely on QTEMP when I

> am doing professional services contracts, and so far it has worked quite 
> well for me. I would chalk QTEMP usage up to "it depends" and "use it to 
> your benefit, but understand the drawbacks". 
>
> Thoughts? 
> Aaron Bartell 
> http://mowyourlawn.com