On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:26:54 -0500, Patrick O'Keefe wrote: >On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:02:48 -0700, Schwarz, Barry A wrote: > >>Even though the PDS calls it a TTR, each member starts a new block so >>the situation you describe cannot occur. >>... > >Thank you for corfirming what my questionable memory told me. > >Doesn't that also argue against what Paul Gilmartin said about >NOTE on Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:31:31 -0500: regarding my QPAM >question: > >"... it's because the definition of the NOTE word has no >provision for specifying the offset of the current record >within a block. " > >Or maybe I just misunderstood Gil's comment. Maybe I don't know >what use of NOTE he was refering to. > My understanding/conjecture is that when the Assembler (for example), using BPAM, encounters a COPY nested within another COPY member, it:
o Does a NOTE to mark the current block. o Saves the NOTE word _and_ the offset of the current source record relative to that block o Does a FIND to open the referenced member. At the end of that member, it reverses the process with a POINT and displacing to the saved offset. If the motivation of Q*AM is to make blocking and unblocking transparent to the program, the putative QNOTE would need to save both the TTR and the record offset in an opaque data object. QPOINT would need to employ both. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
