On Thu, 3 May 2018 08:23:45 -0500, Steve Horein wrote: >Is there a practical limit to the number of dynamic LNKLST sets created?
I don't know.... I would guess that there is some common storage required for each LNKLST set. >I would like to come up >with a naming convention for the LNKLST sets that includes a numeric >suffix, such that if product "A" is introduced first, the new set name is >LNKLST01. When product "B" is introduced, set name LNKLST02 is defined. If >product "A" requires back out, LNKLST03 is defined. If product "B" requires >back out, LNKLST04 is defined, etc, etc, rinse, repeat. I honestly doubt >there would ever be need to extend past "LNKLST99", or even "LNKLST09", but >knowing a limitation (if one exists) will help shape a standard. Is hex >representation acceptable, allowing from 01-FF sets? It sounds like you are trying to fit your naming convention into 8 characters when 16 are allowed. Naming them LNKLSTxx seems redundant to me and uninformative. What if you included the product name that was the reason for the new LNKLST into the name? -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
