On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:36:02 -0500, Craddock, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... >I've been using it a little while myself :-) and so I do agree that when >used entirely within it's most tightly constrained boundaries "it >works". But as I pointed out earlier there are many unobvious traps for >the unwary. ... I may have missed some of the examples you cited, but it seems the "failings" were either misuse of WAIT/POST (as stated before, hardly the fault of the interface) or the interface's failure to check that it has been given a correctly initialized ECB (which obviously includes not being given an ECB at all). The latter would allow more graceful failures, but there would still be a failure. This function is not the only one that performs badly when it is not provided with the correct arguments. Users could (and have, I assume) included the ECB within a larger, self-identifying control block, and nest WAIT and POST within code that validates that control block. But I have a feeling you want something that goes beyond the intended purpose of POST and WAIT, not just a cleaned up version of the existing function. Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
