Re: SetLL *start

[Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/28/2011 5:00 PM, Barbara Morris wrote:
> On 2/27/2011 5:08 PM, M. Lazarus wrote:
> > Is there any good technical (not historical) reason that we still have
> > any opcodes that can't use record formats and file names, for data
> > files, interchangeably? PF's can't contain multiple formats.
> > Multi-format LF's are relatively rare nowadays. The only time it would
> > require differentiation is if a MFLF is used.
> >
> > Is there a consideration to relax that requirement?
> Not sure what would qualify as a good technical reason.
>
> I don't think it would be good to simply say that a file name is
> synonymous with its record format name if there is only one format.  At
> least, it doesn't make sense to me to allow say using a format name on
> an OPEN opcode.  But maybe it makes sense to allow a WRITE or SETLL
> *START/*END to a format name if there is only one format.
>
> There hasn't been any real consideration given to relaxing those rules.

I think the only rationale would be to allow us for once and for all to 
choose a consistent convention for all RLA opcodes.  Your point is well 
taken, of course, that format doesn't make sense for OPEN, but would it 
be possible to allow file name for all opcodes?  Personally, I prefer 
that anyway since the file name is what you see in the source code; the 
format name is something I have to look up (or check the Outline view in 
RDP <grin>).

Joe