I have one of those pocket IBM documents. The title is OS/VS2 TSO Command Language Reference and Summary GX28-0647-4, dated May 1978. I got it in 1980. The ALLOC command is on page one, and shows in the first bracket [OLD SHR MOD NEW] and the second bracket [KEEP DELETE CATALOG UNCATALOG].
"Confidentially doc, I am the wabbit." Bugs Bunny Sent with Proton Mail secure email. On Friday, July 18th, 2025 at 8:37 AM, Mike Schwab <[email protected]> wrote: > Syntax diagram as drawn also requires specification in a particular order. > In reality, any keyword can be specified in any order. Duplicates or > conflicts are handled by the last one controls. > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 7:03 AM Seymour J Metz [email protected] wrote: > > > "that tells you it's a non-repeatable choice which is very different from > > mutually exclusive." is total BS. There is no path from the opening double > > arrow to the closing double arrow that goes through both. Eunix is a red > > herring. > > > > -- > > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי > > נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [email protected] on behalf > > of Jon Perryman [email protected] > > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 1:01 AM > > To: [email protected] [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Contention problem TSO and batch job > > > > External Message: Use Caution > > > > On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:49:04 -0500, Paul Gilmartin [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > > The syntax diagram in: < > > > https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/3.1.0?topic=command-allocate-syntax> > > > says that CATALOG and DELETE are mutually exclusive? > > > > ROTFLOL! typical UNIX mentality. Completely ignores section "How to read > > the TSO/E command syntax" that tells you it's a non-repeatable choice which > > is very different from mutually exclusive. Only the last choice will be > > used. ln the case of "catalog delete", catalog is ignored. > > > > > Would you care to submit a Feedback? Would IBM care to address it? > > > > ROTFLOL! The pot calling the kettle black. Unix doesn't bother documenting > > mutually exclusive command options and worse yet, is not consistent (e.g. > > rm -iffi versus ls -AaaA). Maybe you should help Unix fix its appalling > > errors before complaining about IBM! > > > > > "Well. everybody knows what it means," is not suitable response > > > to a report of a documentation error. > > > > ROTFLOL! Let's pretend IBM didn't have that section. Everyone knows what > > it means because it consistently used where appropriate. When working in > > Unix, consistency is a pipe dream. > > > > > Does that diagram also improperly constrain the order of options? > > > > Unix confession through projection with no diagrams nor order of options > > and rarely documenting mutually exclusive. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > -- > Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA > Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
