In <00fa01ca58de$cbaac1b0$630045...@net>, on 10/29/2009
at 05:28 PM, "John P. Baker" <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
