I meant in theory. I meant had they done this "back when." I meant as opposed to 100 things that Chris might wish for and that other OSes do routinely, just these two things would be (would have been) a huge improvement.
Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne Driscoll Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 12:50 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Is the teaching of non-reentrant HLASM coding practices ever defensible? And doing this while keeping true to compatability allowances unique to the platform? If customers discover that they will be required to, in a fell swoop, replace all installed hardware, software, interfaces, etc. how many would stick with this platform? Wayne Driscoll Product Developer JME Software LLC NOTE: All opinions are strictly my own. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 1:43 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Is the teaching of non-reentrant HLASM coding practices ever defensible? Just TWO things would make life so much simpler: 1. A universal hardware and OS stack. Then all the discussions about reentrance go away. 2. Get the I/O control blocks out of the user's space -- go instead to a "handle" type approach where the gory details of the I/O control blocks were not the application developer's problem. And bingo, the 24-bit DCB problem disappears. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
