> Thanks to Lizette Kohler, I can mention that, before, when I said "object", more correctly, I should have said "load", since the module has passed through the linkage editor.
Since when has it been so difficult to understand such a clear sentence? Feel free to explain what aspect of the sentence causes you problems with understanding. If my previous references to "object" modules are to be understood as references to "load" modules, in what sense I am to be considered advocating that "object" modules should be put into a partitioned data set referenced by DD-name STEPLIB? These are not rhetorical questions. If you feel you have any useful contribution to make, you should answer them. Otherwise much advice has been offered recently over the appropriate action to take which I expect you do not need repeated. - Oh, I see I must offer an apology to everyone, when I wrote "favour" before, it should have been "flavour". I hope that didn't upset anyone's understanding too much! It's one of those cases where a mere spell-checker doesn't hack it! Chris Mason On Thu, 12 May 2011 07:38:50 +1000, Wayne Bickerdike <wayn...@gmail.com> wrote: >I'm reinforcing the point for the benefit of all concerned. > >You didn't fully contradict that object modules have no place in STEPLIB. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
