Why? Wouldn't it be better to put facilities requiring assembler into function packages so that other REXX scripts can use them? It's no rocket science.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu> on behalf of John McKown <john.archie.mck...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 7:44 AM To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Subject: Re: AC(1) On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Peter Relson <rel...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > <snip>...the logic above is done on _every_ OPEN for _every_ DD > name. Or is it only if the OPEN is for a DCB which is BPAM (i.e. the DD > concatenation is for libraries)? > </snip> > > I'm not sure, but since APF authorization applies only to load libraries, > I'd imagine that the OPEN processing is done > only for cases where it applies. > > <snip> > IPLINFO is a REXX exec. > </snip> > > I believe you. The code that was shown was assembler. Regardless, being an > exec still means that the choice was made not to use an intended > programming interface. > I hit my head last night, as will be obvious from: OOH! OOH! I have an idea for REXX: "embedded assembler". Followed by "embedded <other language like COBOL, PL/1, etc>". > > Peter Relson > z/OS Core Technology Design > -- We all have skeletons in our closet. Mine are so old, they have osteoporosis. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
