On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote:
> Hmmm. Interesting. Not sure I agree, but I see your logic. > > I mean, doesn't everything in vendor documentation have the same problem? > If I say "specify the name of a PDS(E) member" isn't there a risk that IBM > comes out someday with PDSX? Even so, I think the quote is clearer than if > we wrote "specify the name of a z/OS library member." > > I would think people would be smart enough to say "well it worked with > PDSE's, it will probably work with the new PDSX's" just as how when I read > "specify the name of an HFS file" I know that a zFS file will probably work > as well (assuming the context is individual UNIX files, not the VSAM LDS's > that underlie xFS). I suspect most z/OS sysprogs would understand "zFS > file" more clearly than "UNIX file." > Re; PDS(E), I just use something like: "library" or maybe "source program library" / "executable program library". For an individual UNIX file, such as /etc/resolv.conf, I use "UNIX file". For a UNIX filesystem container data set, I use just that. Yeah, I'm getting wordy in my old age. Now, do we continue the "dataset" vs "data set" debate to "filesystem" vs "file system"? Personally, I vote for the smushedupword. > > Charles > > > -- "Irrigation of the land with seawater desalinated by fusion power is ancient. It's called 'rain'." -- Michael McClary, in alt.fusion Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
