In <00fa01ca58de$cbaac1b0$630045...@net>, on 10/29/2009 at 05:28 PM, "John P. Baker" <jbaker...@comporium.net> said:
>The proposal previously set forth is interesting, but I would like to put >forward an alternative proposal. Actually, it's a proposal for an alternative goal. My goal was to preserve compatibility with existing code. >For a long PARM= value, R1 -> fullword address of PARM= info, consisting >of a 4-byte length prefix (negated (high-order bit = B'1'), value >101..installation-defined-maximum), followed by a fullword address of a >string buffer not exceeding installation-defined-maximum bytes, followed >by a fullword ALET identifying the dataspace wherein the string buffer >is located. That might be a good design for a new system with no compatibility constraints, but it destroys compatibility with existing code. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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