Skip:
A LONG time ago I asked via GUIDE req that SMPE support VB type files.
I think it came back as either rej or FO (sorry its been 30 years). I
think the reason IBM gave was that IEBUPDTE would really only support
FB.
Talk about *************************. Everybody was furious. IBM (to
this day) ships clists out as 80 byte images.
I stopped supporting IBM clists and would convert any (1 or 2) that I
ever found to VB. As a consequence none of IBM's clist libraries
never made it to general usage.
IBM really missed the boat on this.
Ed
On Apr 7, 2013, at 1:44 PM, Skip Robinson wrote:
++MACUPD and ++SRCUPD depend entirely on FB sequence numbers. Without
sequence numbers, every macro or source 'update' would have to be
delivered as a complete replacement. For better or worse.
I don't believe that VB sequence numbers have the same requirement
because
few (if any?) SMPE elements are delivered in VB format. At least
not with
sequence numbers.
.
.
JO.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com
From: Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org>
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU,
Date: 04/07/2013 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: 32760? (was: PARMDD?)
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-
m...@listserv.ua.edu>
more consideration should have been given to usability
If I were the product manager for z/OS, I probably would have
thrown the
tentative design out here on IBMMAIN for comment *before* it was
"too late
to make changes."
What a fabulous resource this list would be if used in that fashion: a
hundred intelligent, experienced programmers willing to do volunteer
software design for IBM. What a shame to let it go to waste.
I dislike sequence numbers anyway
A completely different topic, but sequence numbers are obviously (I
think.
Am I wrong?) entirely a vestigial organ left from the days of punched
cards. They were a lifesaver if you dropped your cards on the
floor, and
the compilers put out a warning if you loaded the cards into the
reader in
incorrect order. But do sequence numbers have a lick of value today?
Charles
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-
m...@listserv.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 7:33 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: 32760? (was: PARMDD?)
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:51:48 -0400, Peter Relson wrote:
ISPF also supports sequence numbers for RECFM=VB; I hope that you're
not saying that those are not stripped when FB sequence numbers are.
That is exactly what I am saying. I suppose it comes down to: if it
hurts to do that, then don't do that.
I agree. I dislike sequence numbers anyway.
The rules will be documented. As with most things, you get to decide
what that implies to your usage.
I see three main levels of implementation quality.
1) The function is incomplete.
2) The Turing Tarpit in which everything is possible but nothing
of interest is easy. -- Alan Perlis.
3) Functional completeness with user friendliness.
The PARMDD rules, like much of JCL, (will) fall squarely in
category (2).
Circa 1964, there was an excuse: IBM was in a desperate rush to get
OS/360
out the door and into revenue. Things _should_ be different in the
21st
Century. z/OS is vastly more complex than
OS/360 and proportionally more consideration should have been given to
usability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
