On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:38:08 -0500, William H. Blair wrote: > >For there to have been a "rationale" (for a decision or choice) >there would have to have been a decision or choice (not to call >STOW to delete the member). There never was such a decision made >so there was (and is) no need to justify something that never, >in fact, happened. > >> Nowadays the only rationale, spurious, is that "it's always >> been that way." And ever shall be, as long as descendants of >> OS/360 endure. > >Nope. There is [still] no "rationale" because there has never >been any consideration of the issue -- serious or otherwise. > Mentally reviewing this thread, I recall considerable sentiment (not necessarily majority) that when the user cites a member when allocating with a DELETE disposition, the reasonable expectation is that the entity to be deleted is the member mentioned. I see "never been any consideration" as a failure of the designers to step back and ask themselves, "What will be the customers' perception of this behavior?" The resource deficiency, then, appears to have been in the designers' perspective. Considering options and selecting one based on a cost/ benefit analysis is more laudable than approaching the problem with tunnel vision and failing to consider other options than one.
-- 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
