RE: An opinion please (ordering of command parameters)

["Elvis Budimlic" <ebudimlic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that positional parameters are very useful in many, if not most
situations.

However, in this case there is ambiguity (different people may expect
different order) as well as possibility of a simple user error (an 'oops'
factor).  If prompting was required, it would significantly reduce a
possibility of an end-user entering libraries in a wrong order, since prompt
text and keyword names would (hopefully) eliminate ambiguity.  

Of course, to reduce the possibility of an end user error even further, some
additional design is required. Perhaps a data area that's in PROD but not in
TEST?  Or a value within a data area?  Then add a command validity checker
that prevents user from entering libraries in the wrong order.

Elvis

Celebrating 11-Years of SQL Performance Excellence on IBM i, i5/OS and
OS/400
www.centerfieldtechnology.com


-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: An opinion please (ordering of command parameters)

I find I must disagree a little - I find the positional parameters to be 
a great shortcut - don't HAVE to type all the parm names. Most 
IBM-supplied commands with positional parameters are well-thought out, 
so that it is reasonable what you put where. CPY* commands usually have 
the FROM first, followed by the TO - just as was recommended for the OP.

So I find positional parameters to be helpful for usability - I'll have 
to find that original article from IBM on user-interface design on the 
System/38 - it's in one of those IBM Systems Journal things from a while 
ago. Maybe it discusses this aspect of things.

JMHO
Vern