Well, the OPZ name would tend to support you on that ... Charles
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John Eells Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 4:08 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL v5 Charles Mills wrote: > I was going to post about this but could not remember whether it was still > under NDA or not and was too busy to research. > > Yes! Customers told IBM what has been posted on this thread: "COBOL > v5.2 is out of the question because we have existing load modules in > (PDS) libraries that are *never* not allocated to a job on one system > or another." (Plus "we have tons of JCL and no budget to revamp it all > in some clever fashion that would facilitate a phased migration to new > (PDSE) libraries.") > > This is IBM's solution. Just as the COBOL Binary Optimizer is IBM's solution > to "recompiling is out of the question -- we have no idea whether we have > source and/or whether it is current." <snip> Actually, if I recall correctly, the IEFOPZxx function was originally built solely with the optimizer in mind. The realization that it had value for COBOL V5 PDS/PDSE conversions came to us after someone (you know who you are...and thanks!) at the TDM pointed it out. It's certainly not the first time we've built something with one purpose in mind to find that it's got other uses; sometimes the "other uses" turn out to have more value than the originally intended purpose. It happens. -- John Eells IBM Poughkeepsie ee...@us.ibm.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
