Christ Craddock's point is ineluctable.
Well before the Y2K problem had been recognized by hoi polloi IBM guaranteed
that the CICS Command-Level EIB (Execution Interface Block) would not be
altered in a way that would break old CICS APs, in effect that old
DSECTs/templates would continue to map (part of) it correctly, with new fields
being added beyond existing ones, at higher storage addresses.
This commitment proved to be an awkward one: The EIB current-date field made
not four yyyy but only two yy year digits available. To its credit, IBM
honored its commitment anyway; four-digit current-date year values were
provided, but they were provided elsewhere.
Strictures against deplorable programming practices are, I suppose, good and
usually harmless fun, even when, as here, they are without the redeeming merit
of novelty.
What these strictures lack is any force as arguments here. They are akin to
the contention of the debtor who, acknowledging that he did incur an
obligation, nevertheless insists that he need not pay it because his creditor
is a villain.
John Gilmore Ashland, MA 01721-1817 USA
_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
