That what I did
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 12:41 PM Paul Gilmartin < [email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 14:04:28 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > >Cite? > > > Does this apply?: > <https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/3.1.0?topic=command-keyword-operands> > > Some of this is hard to indicate in BNF. > > But I agree with your earlier statement that the > syntax diagram has no path with both CATALOG and DELETE. > > >________________________________________ > >Fro : Mike Schwab <[email protected]> > >Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 8:37 AM > > > >Syntax diagram as dwawn 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 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. > >>>> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: >> of Jon Perryman > >> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 1:01 AM > >> > >> On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:49:04 -0500, Paul Gilmartin > 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. > > -- > gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
