There were several of us working on the SHARE requirements. We tried to make a
business case for the requirements that we needed. And, yes, some of Greg's
changes did not get put into HLASM.
A few we could not come up with a business case, and a few none of us were
using
and we did not know anyone that was using the feature so we did not burden IBM
with those. As I remember, there were only one or two that John was not able
to
get implemented once we gave him the business case. And, yes, there were one
or
two that IBM implemented differently because it was the IBM way and not Greg's
way.
Lloyd
----- Original Message ----
From: Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) <shmuel+...@patriot.net>
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Thu, March 7, 2013 9:24:34 AM
Subject: Re: Where current HLASM doc?
In <1362595274.25094.yahoomai...@web181403.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, on
03/06/2013
at 10:41 AM, Lloyd Fuller <leful...@sbcglobal.net> said:
>In fact many of the feature upgrades from H Assembler to HLASM came
>from the SLAC mods descriptions as we wrote SHARE requirements for
>those features.
In at least one case Greg's version was better than IBM's.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
