On Jul 11, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/08/2005
at 11:58 PM, Joe Zitzelberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Then why did you write "viewed through the eyes of ISPF, with a spool
dataset listing" when you meant "viewed through the eyes of SDSF"? The
ISPF facility for viewing SPOOL output has nothing to do with SDSF.
Yes. ISPF is one such tool. SDSF is a totally different one.
No. SDSF is going to be the application.
PKB. I understood it just fine; you were wrong, and don't seem to
understand the difference between a facility of ISPF and a similar
facility in SDSF.
But ISPF never means SDSF.
IBM has well documented in SDSF manuals, ISPF manuals and JES manuals
the use of the ISPF Edit and Browse services from within SDSF. I'll
save you the google, here are IBM's words on their quick reference
card for SDSF:
http://www.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/sdsf/pdf/
sdsfcard.pdf
Note the part where it says "Browse output using ISPF Browse",
"Browse output using ISPF Edit" and "Browse JCL using ISPF Edit".
IBM's words, not mine.
You are simply factually incorrect -- SDSF can and will invoke the
actual ISPF Edit and Browse applications if ISPF is available.
If I were a punny sort I might suggest you have failed to see the
forest full of features because of all the pedan-trees.
But when Bill K. says
Bill K did not say that the message includes the hexadecimal value of
the text in error. He did, however, say that the message could be
improved. Perhaps you should pay closer attention to what he actually
says instead of the spin that you wish to put upon it.
I did not claim Bill said that. I said:
"You can rely on the 'compiler used to translate out
non-displayables'. You even got me to question the
behavior and test it. But when Bill K. says the compiler
doesn't do that, it is very likely that the compiler
doesn't do that."
Your creative quoting has confused you.
I cited Bill's refutation your frequently repeated assertion that
"the compiler translates out non-displayable chars". (Since you
seemed quite unwilling to accept the results of my testing of this
compiler behavior)
And while I have suggested that the text seems quite self-documenting
-- as all IBM Cobol compiler messages are -- my primary opposition
has been to the idea of a Cobol M&C manual. They tend to be a waste
of time for compilers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
