Thanks, That looks relevant. -- 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 Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 12:41 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Contention problem TSO and batch job External Message: Use Caution 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
