On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 20:07:26 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: >This is the old horizontal versus vertical argument: should an application >look the same regardless of the environment in which it is running or should >all applications in an environment follow the conventions of that environment? >That's especioally true for ISPF, wheree users often expect things to be ain >separate fields rather than in a single field with punctuation. > The terms are new to my vocabulary. Help orient me. The ISPF user expects a "vertical" UI; I'm proposing a "horizontal" one?
But it depends on point of view: the API designer might perceive my horizontal idea as vertical: all the calls are similar. I have used systems in which the path level separator is variously ':', '/', or '\'. I know one HTTPD which accepts '\' as a level separator to accommodate programmer expectations, contrary to RFC 1738. And its paths were case-insensitive. I had to correct one web developer whose HTMl failed on a different HTTPD. My still favorite system uses ':' as a path separator in the GUI for historical reasons and '/' for portability and Standard conformance in the API. It translates, almost transparently, as needed. ________________________________________ >From: Paul Gilmartin >Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 3:32 PM >> >Wow! But there should be a single *Unique* string representation >of GDG and PDSE member generation manipulations,honored >alike in: >o JCL DD statements >o TSO ALLOCATE >o ISPF >o BPXWDYN >o XLC fopen() >o OMVS /bin/cp >o etc. >... sparing the programmer the need to code DYNALLOC text units. >The parsing and interpretation should be done by SVC 99, not in >code replicated and maintained in the various utilities/ -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
