I hear you, and IBM is aware of the concern over using the command name RUNSQL.
On the flip side, anyone familiar with the system (and not having built their own RUNSQL in the past) might reasonably expect any IBM provided command with this function to be named RUNSQL, accessible through GO CMDRUN, etc. To introduce a name such as EXECSQL, DOSQL, RUNSQLIBM, RUNLATESQL, etc. would not be intuitive or obvious to the vast majority of users. Clearly the best solution would involve IBM having provided this function years ago.
Right now I'm just glad I'm not still in the System Design Control Group (which is the first time I've ever said/thought that lol).
On the flip side, anyone familiar with the system (and not having built their own RUNSQL in the past) might reasonably expect any IBM provided command with this function to be named RUNSQL, accessible through GO CMDRUN, etc. To introduce a name such as EXECSQL, DOSQL, RUNSQLIBM, RUNLATESQL, etc. would not be intuitive or obvious to the vast majority of users. Clearly the best solution would involve IBM having provided this function years ago.
Right now I'm just glad I'm not still in the System Design Control Group (which is the first time I've ever said/thought that lol).
Comment