Re: Record name the same as the file name

[Hans Boldt <boldt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob cozzi wrote:
> Hans,
> The change could be to just allow any Qualified data structure as the target
> rather than a short list of specific keywords used when declaring a data
> structure.  What's the difference between LIKEREC and LIKEDS to the
> Programmer? There should be no difference to the programmer. I could accept
> a QUALIFIED limitation or no other limitation, but not a short list that
> needs to be, (A) documented, (B) explained, (C) Taught, (D) Learned, and (E)
> Comprehended.

I don't disagree with your argument, Bob. As I said, we've been 
flip-flopping ourselves on what to allow for result DS on externally 
described I/O. At one point, we were prepared to have only the 
requirement that the result DS have the same length as the record 
length of the record or file. (Just like with program described 
I/O.) Unfortunately, that didn't mesh well with certain other 
language features, like null-capable fields. And so we flip-flopped 
back to requiring some sort of definitional link between the record 
or file and the data structure. That is, either LIKEREC or LIKEDS 
where the definition can be followed back to the record. In 
practice, this is what you would do anyways even with less 
restrictive rules, since there would still be too much room for 
error otherwise.

Cheers! Hans