On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:52:34 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > >>I link your idea a lot. It reminds me of how Unix executables can be >>any interpreter using the "#! /some/prog" > >The C/I is not a shell. > I do not mean to conflate converter operations with interpreter operations. I was looking for an enhancement to the lame generative facilities (mostly now limited to PROC and SET) of the converter, such as converter-phase conditionals and looping. Converter, not Interpreter. I would expect John Gilmore's language of choice if this were done to be HLASM with PUNCH statement output fed back to the Converter input stream.
If the external generator were forked into a separate address space and setuid submitter, the security exposures would be limited to DoS via long-running or output-spewing generators. >Now, what would be nice would be if the TSO service routines could >recognize a shebang or equivalent in SYSPROC and SYSEXEC members. > Even as they now recognize "/* Rexx ..."? I agree. Do "SYSCALL spawn sh ...". Hmmm. How does one pass a handle of a PDS member to /bin/sh? Copy it to HFS and pass that? Connect stdin to keyboard and stdout and stderr to display? Oops! This instantly gets into trouble with the VTAM TSO half-ass^H^H^Hduplex terminal handling. Cf. the infuriating RUNNING/INPUT toggle in 3270 OMVS. --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
