On 9 Jun 2011 08:07:21 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >On 8 June 2011 23:56, Robert A. Rosenberg <hal9...@panix.com> wrote: >> At 17:09 -0400 on 06/08/2011, Tony Harminc wrote about Re: DCBs and DCBEs - >> Could IBM have done it any worse?: >> >>> So OPEN not only zeroed out the DCBE pointer, but it also turned off >>> the flags that show that such a pointer exists? I suppose that's >>> considerate... >> >> Considerate Nothing - Since it destroyed the DCBE Pointer (by setting it to >> Zero) it HAD to reset the flags or the first time something tried to access >> the DCBE Pointer (since the flags were still set) it would ABEND/0cx. The >> only way to avoid this is to unset the flags that would cause the pointer to >> be referenced. > >I omitted the :-) to save bandwidth.
How hard would it be for IBM to allow use of the ACB for QSAM data sets? BSAM? BPAM? PDSE? BDAM? Clark Morris > >Tony H. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
