PHD

[Richard Witkopp]

Not to split hairs, but if the record size is not changed,
and the newly added fields are not referenced, we seem to be
able to get away with not recompiling programs. I suppose
we probably should recompile, but usually don't. This is on
RMS files.

> PhD and PDL are the same regarding when you must recompile 
> screens, reports,
> and runs. If you add or change a file to a PhD dictionary (via the
> appropriate screen), or to a PDL dictionary (by adding the syntax and
> recompiling the dictionary), you still have to recompile any screens,
> reports, and runs that use that file.
> 
> In your example of adding an item to an existing file, you 
> would have to
> recompile any screen, report, or run that used that file. And 
> again, this is
> no different for PhD or PDL.
> 
> Bob Deskin              
> Senior Product Advisor  bob.deskin@cognos.com
> Cognos Inc.             (613) 738-1338 ext 4205 FAX: (613) 228-3149
> 3755 Riverside Drive P.O. Box 9707 Stn. T, Ottawa ON K1G 4K9 CANADA
> 
> 
> > ----------
> > From: 	Mike Chalenburg[SMTP:chalenburg@Harding.edu]
> > Sent: 	Wednesday, November 18, 1998 4:14 PM
> > To: 	powerh-l@lists.swau.edu
> > Subject: 	RE: PHD
> > 
> > I have used PDL before and it is as Allison says.  It is 
> convenient to
> > move
> > between dictionaries and has its good points but PHD is certainly
> > convenient
> > for the ad hoc changes that constitute most of our 
> dictionary maintenance.
> > 
> > I'm curious as to what the scenario will be in version 8.  
> We have one
> > production dictionary and make a changes to it regularly.  
> If I understand
> > it correctly, when you edit the PDL source, there is a compilation
> > process.
> > Then it gets fuzzy in my mind.  Does the binding to this 
> dictionary occur
> > when a Q%S is compiled or at execution time?  My main 
> question has to do
> > with a situation like adding a new field to an existing 
> data file.  Will
> > all
> > of the Q%S's have to be recompiled, just the ones that use 
> that particular
> > file or just the ones that would use that new field?  
> Currently you can
> > make
> > changes like this and the things that don't actually use 
> the field will be
> > ok except for cases where the record is used in PASSING and 
> RECEIVING
> > clauses.
> > 
> > I know this is still a beta version, but does anyone know?
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
> = = = = = = =
> > =
> > Subscribe: "subscribe powerh-l" in message body to
> > majordomo@lists.swau.edu
> > Unsubscribe: "unsubscribe powerh-l" in message to 
> majordomo@lists.swau.edu
> > powerh-l@lists.swau.edu is gatewayed one-way to 
> bit.listserv.powerh-l
> > This list is closed, thus to post to the list, you must be 
> a subscriber.
> > 
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
> = = = = = = =
> Subscribe: "subscribe powerh-l" in message body to 
> majordomo@lists.swau.edu
> Unsubscribe: "unsubscribe powerh-l" in message to 
> majordomo@lists.swau.edu
> powerh-l@lists.swau.edu is gatewayed one-way to bit.listserv.powerh-l
> This list is closed, thus to post to the list, you must be a 
> subscriber.
> 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Subscribe: "subscribe powerh-l" in message body to majordomo@lists.swau.edu
Unsubscribe: "unsubscribe powerh-l" in message to majordomo@lists.swau.edu
powerh-l@lists.swau.edu is gatewayed one-way to bit.listserv.powerh-l
This list is closed, thus to post to the list, you must be a subscriber.