In <listserv%201001031108554432.0...@bama.ua.edu>, on 01/03/2010
at 11:08 AM, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> said:
>Does anyone know a plausible design rationale for the current
>restrictions on symbol substitution?
The fact that things were added after the original design, including
symbols.
>Rather, I ascribe it to Conway's law at its perniciousest. Design and
>coding of parsers for the various JCL operands was parceled out to
>different programmers. Each could decide independently whether to
>support symbol substitution.
Most of the coding was done before there were symbols.
>Once again, the deficiencies I perceive in Rexx are:
OS issues rather than REXX issues. If z/OS had the suuport it would be
easy for Rexx to exploit it.
--
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
