Item Subject: Message text
Jeff writes:
> So essentially if the time = the target time, you stream IN = 1 (day), else
> you stream it AT = the target time (for the following day).
 
Yes, but this still isn't perfect. The clock could move to the next minute
between the IF and the STREAM, causing the job to run one minute 'too late'
the next day. This is no big deal, since the next day it will get back into
sync, but my point is that you need all this goofy extra code to do
something so simple! And everybody has to learn this the hard way.
 
Anyone at HP want to comment on *why* ;AT= works the way it does?? What
would it hurt to have had it behave the same way for time==now as it does
for time<now? And for that matter, why a :PAUSE of at least two minutes
seems to be required to get one minute into the future? :-)
 
G.