Skip Robinson wrote:
This might generate a whole new thread. We have used '--' for IODF suffix
for as long as generic specifications have been available. We chose '--'
because, in the event that the exact matching IODF cannot be found, we
figure that the 'most recent' IODF would give us the best chance of coming
up far enough to fix the problem. Our practice to name successive IODFs by
incrementing the suffix. Therefore, we want to search *backwards* [...]
What's the most important is to avoid hardcoding the sufix.
Yes, '--' is even better than '++' for the above scenario. In case of
missing current IODF, the IODF chosen by '--' will be more current than
IODF chosen by '++'.
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
