Dear Listers,
How can I make this:
RS=ALERTSN(SEV,TYPENAME,ELEMENT,DESC,STATUS,STSDESC,
SUBSRC,SOURCE,LOCATION,SYSTYPE,PLTFTYPE,IMPACT,HOST,
MONENV,RESOURCE,EXTRINFO,ACTIVE,CLOSING,FTPERR,
APPLTYPE,APPLNAME,UNIQUE)
actually work?
What happens is that the values of STSDESC and SUBSRC get c
comma on each continuing line will solve your problem.
HTH
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jantje.
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 11:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Many arguments to a Rexx function call
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 15:27:19 +, Farley, Peter x23353
wrote:
>Use SPACE COMMA at the end of each separate line of arguments except the last
>line with the closing parenthesis.
>
>Comma at the end of a Rexx line says concatenate the next line with the
>current line, so your ARGUMENT comma is
ubject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 15:27:19 +, Farley, Peter x23353
wrote:
>Use SPACE COMMA at the end of each separate line of arguments except the last
>line with the closing parenthesis.
>
>Comma at the end of a Rexx line says concaten
Farley, Peter wrote, in part:
>Use SPACE COMMA at the end of each separate line of arguments except the
last line with the closing parenthesis.
Doesn't actually need the space, of course, though my personal style would
use it for readability. It's just a trailing comma that makes it
continuat
on List On Behalf Of
> Jantje.
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 9:19 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Many arguments to a Rexx function call
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> How can I make this:
>
> RS=ALERTSN(SEV,TYPENAME,ELEMENT,DESC,STATUS,STSDESC,
> SUBSRC,SO
Don Grinsell wrote:
>Start your continuation lines with a comma:
> RS=ALERTSN(SEV,TYPENAME,ELEMENT,DESC,STATUS,STSDESC ,
> ,SUBSRC,SOURCE,LOCATION,SYSTYPE,PLTFTYPE,IMPACT,HOST ,
> ,MONENV,RESOURCE,EXTRINFO,ACTIVE,CLOSING,FTPERR ,
> ,APPLTYPE,APPLNAME,UNIQUE)
Ooh. Never even thoug
tp://www2.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?TSO-REXX
This one you have to go to the bottom of the webpage.
Lizette
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
> Jantje.
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 8:19 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subj
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 17:57:14 -0700, Lizette Koehler wrote:
>Personally in REXX I use a list with SPACE between each arg and a blank comma
>at the end
>
>VAR =' a b c ' ,
> ' d e f '
>
That is just one variable, a 15-charater string. And if passed to a function
would
be just one argument.
>N
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 17:21:19 +, Grinsell, Don wrote:
>Start your continuation lines with a comma:
>
> RS=ALERTSN(SEV,TYPENAME,ELEMENT,DESC,STATUS,STSDESC,
> ,SUBSRC,SOURCE,LOCATION,SYSTYPE,PLTFTYPE,IMPACT,HOST,
> ,MONENV,RESOURCE,EXTRINFO,ACTIVE,CLOSING,FTPERR,
> ,APPLTYPE,APPLNAME,UNIQU
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 17:57:14 -0700, Lizette Koehler
wrote:
>Personally in REXX I use a list with SPACE between each arg and a blank comma
>at the end
>
>VAR =' a b c ' ,
> ' d e f '
Unfortunately, that will not work as I have values in the arguments that
contain blanks. Using a blank as th
Jantje wrote:
>Commas at the beginning or at the end makes no difference... :
Right, nobody thought it would. That was a style point.
If your function call is still failing as you indicate:
>87 +++
>RS=ALERTSN(SEV,TYPENAME,ELEMENT,DESC,STATUS,STSDESC,,SUBSRC,SOURCE,LOCATION
,SYSTYP
Jantje wrote:
>Commas at the beginning or at the end makes no difference... :
As far as the language syntax goes, this is a true statement. As far as
maintainability goes, that is another story. When I continue a statement,
I prefer to break between arguments, as there is typically less of lang
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:31:26 -0500, Jantje. wrote:
>On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 17:57:14 -0700, Lizette Koehler
>wrote:
>
>>Personally in REXX I use a list with SPACE between each arg and a blank comma
>>at the end
>>
>>VAR =' a b c ' ,
>> ' d e f '
>
Spaces do not separate arguments; spaces separa
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:37:20 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>Then you're apparently calling it wrong. I see double commas in the error
>output: that suggests you have doubled commas in the wrong place, because if
>they're seen as continuation, ALERTSN won't see them at all.
Well... ALERTSN is not s
PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call
Don Grinsell wrote:
>Start your continuation lines with a comma:
> RS=ALERTSN(SEV,TYPENAME,ELEMENT,DESC,STATUS,STSDESC ,
> ,SUBSRC,SOURCE,LOCATION,SYSTYPE,PLTFTYPE,IMPACT,HOST ,
> ,MON
09, 2018 9:12 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:37:20 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>Then you're apparently calling it wrong. I see double commas in the
>error
>output: that suggests you have doubled commas in t
M-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU<mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:37:20 -0400, Phil Smith III
mailto:li...@akphs.com>> wrote:
>Then you're apparently calling it wrong. I see double commas in the
>error
>output: that
o: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU<mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call
If you need to include all 22 arguments, just make the last one bigger and
parse it a second time to get the results.
For example:
01 /* REXX */
02 rs = ALERTSN(SEV,TYPE
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:59:35 +, Phil Carlyle wrote:
>Found this in an IBM publication (SA32-0982-00):
>
>When you invoke a REXX exec either implicitly or explicitly using the EXEC
>command.
>You can pass either one or no arguments to the exec. Thus the ARG instruction
>in the
>preceding exam
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 10:30:13 -0400, Hobart Spitz wrote:
>
>Assuming we're not talking about quoted commas, which are entirely
>different animals, I respectfully disagree for these reasons:
> ...
> 2. Putting the argument delimiting comma at the beginning of a line
> means that you have to reme
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:29:22 -0700, Gerhard Adam wrote:
>If you need to include all 22 arguments, just make the last one bigger and
>parse it a second time to get the results.
>For example:
>01 /* REXX */
>02 rs = ALERTSN(SEV,T
Jantje wrote:
>Well... ALERTSN is not seeing any of it.
>The error message is emitted while ALERTSNB is in control. ALERTSN is never
invoked.
Eh? You invoke ALERTSN. But do so apparently incorrectly.
What does TRACE I show?
---
Just seems like a lot of discussion trying to pass 22 arguments, when the limit
is 20.
After that it's merely a question of how you can convey the information using
whatever means you have available.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 9, 2018, at 12:41 PM, Paul Gilmartin
> <000433f07816-dmarc
On 10/04/2018 5:31 AM, Gerhard Adam wrote:
Just seems like a lot of discussion trying to pass 22 arguments, when the limit
is 20.
And 20 arguments is still wildly excessive. It's long been accepted that
any more than 7 arguments are difficult to comprehend and an alternative
design should be
DTCC Internal (Green)
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jantje.
Sent: 09 April 2018 14:27
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call
ATTENTION! This email originated outside of DTCC
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:19:19 -0700, Gerhard Adam wrote:
>Normal continuation rules would apply, but it appears that there is a limit
>of 20 arguments. You have 22, which produces the error
I would be very grateful if you could point me to the documentation that
confirms this. I swear: I have s
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 14:25:28 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>Correct, however the current version, TSO/E REXX User's Guide Version 2
>Release 3
>(SA32-0982-30), says in the preceding paragraph:
>
>Passing Arguments
>Values passed to an exec are usually called arguments. Arguments can
> consis
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 16:40:22 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>Eh? You invoke ALERTSN. But do so apparently incorrectly.
Actually, I try to invoke ALERTSN, but it does not get invoked.
>
>What does TRACE I show?
Exactly that: it shows the invocation being tempted and failing.
Cheers,
Jantje.
--
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 14:31:18 -0700, Gerhard Adam wrote:
>Just seems like a lot of discussion trying to pass 22 arguments, when the
>limit is 20.
>
You're right. Only, as I was not aware of the existence of that limit...
>After that it's merely a question of how you can convey the information u
he 20 argument limit simply by trying it out.
Adam
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jantje.
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 3:53 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call
On Mon,
Well...not sure how you searched, but "rexx maximum arguments" finds it
pretty quickly, albeit not as fast as "rexx 20 arguments" (of course, once
you know the answer already...)
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Jantje. wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:19:19 -0700, Gerhard Adam
> wrote:
>
> >Norm
Yes, a better error message sure would be nice. Surprising, Rexx is usually
better about such things!
ISTR that even PL/I gives a coherent message if you hit its maximum.
(384-yes, that's too many, although we hit it in a pathological case, where
we were passing tuples of three or four things e
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:16:52 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
>
>And 20 arguments is still wildly excessive. It's long been accepted that
>any more than 7 arguments are difficult to comprehend and an alternative
>design should be implemented.
>
If the code is generated by a program, that's not a conce
On 10/04/2018 9:42 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:16:52 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
And 20 arguments is still wildly excessive. It's long been accepted that
any more than 7 arguments are difficult to comprehend and an alternative
design should be implemented.
If the code is
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, at 11:53, Jantje. wrote:
> I am using now a different separator character (one I am rather sure
> will never occur in the value of the arguments to pass), glueing all
> arguments together into one and parsing them back out in the invoked
> function. That does the trick.
A
ril 9, 2018 2:52 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Many arguments to a Rexx function call
Ok gentlemen, I’m going to jump in on this but because I’m not sure of the
implementation of the REXX code in question I may be a little off. Basically,
if the code is running under TSO batch or
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 12:29:21 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
>Doesn't actually need the space, of course, though my personal style would
>use it for readability. It's just a trailing comma that makes it
>continuation. From Rexx's perspective:
>
Don't the blank lines ...
>rc = function(arg1,,
>
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:25:42 -0400, zMan wrote:
>Well...not sure how you searched, but "rexx maximum arguments" finds it
>pretty quickly, albeit not as fast as "rexx 20 arguments" (of course, once
>you know the answer already...)
>
I should have used Google from the start...
Jantje.
--
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 05:58:47 -0500, Jantje. wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:25:42 -0400, zMan wrote:
>
>>Well...not sure how you searched, but "rexx maximum arguments" finds it
>>pretty quickly, albeit not as fast as "rexx 20 arguments" (of course, once
>>you know the answer already...)
>>
>
>I s
On 2018-04-10, at 23:57:31, Peter Hunkeler wrote:
> User-Agent: AltaMail Classic
> ...
> Another way to accomplish this is to enclose the whole set of parameters in
> quotes or double quotes, thereby creating a single string parameter. You can
> keep the comata as separators *within* the string.
David Crayford:
>If the code doesn't have to be supported by a human then you might be
right.
>If it does then nope! Code that is generated by a program is usually the
>output of a compiler that generates object code that we generally don't
>care about until we need to debug it. If a program
>Frankly, I came across the 20 argument limit simply by trying it out.
The REXX language imposes no limit on the number of subroutine call or function
invocation parameters, but allows implementations to specify limits. TSO/E has
the limit of 20. For function invocation see "z/OS TSO/E REXX Ref
>I am using now a different separator character
Another way to accomplish this is to enclose the whole set of parameters in
quotes or double quotes, thereby creating a single string parameter. You can
keep the comata as separators *within* the string.
In the receiving code parse the single
Lionel B. Dyck (Contractor) <
Mainframe Systems Programmer – RavenTek Solution Partners
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jantje.
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 10:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 15:55:48 +, Dyck, Lionel B. (TRA) wrote:
>This worked - the comma's needed to be literals:
>
>/* REXX*/
> parse value '1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22' with,
>SEV TYPENAME ELEMENT DESC STATUS STSDESC SUBSRC SOURCE LOCATION SYSTYPE ,
>PL
: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Phil Smith III
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 12:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)
David Crayford:
>If the code doesn't have to be supported by a human t
Mills
Gesendet: 10 April, 2018 19:12
An: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Betreff: Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)
I don't think there is a theological boundary: 7 arguments good, 8 arguments
bad.
Your example strikes me as pretty clear. OTOH
Myfunc(true, true, false, true,
Phil Smith III wrote:
>The tuplecount is the number of these triplets, and the elementcount is the
>number of things in each datan. You can have up to 100 of these tuples.
It depends on the compiler of whatever language or underlying REXX interpreter
environment like TSO. Can that many tuplets
Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
>It depends on the compiler of whatever language or underlying REXX
interpreter environment like TSO. Can that many tuplets be handled/passed on
to a function/subroutine?
Sure, and we hit the PL/I compiler limit of 384 arguments (there is a flavor
that has two "thing
Take that array of tuples and put a pointer to it in the parm list. And
voila, you have only three parms, although two might be enough. The array
entries can be defined much more flexibly than trying to cram the
information into a list of addresses.
sas
Steve Smith:
>Take that array of tuples and put a pointer to it in the parm list. And
>voila, you have only three parms, although two might be enough. The array
>entries can be defined much more flexibly than trying to cram the
>information into a list of addresses
Sure, you could do that
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:27:20 -0400, Steve Smith wrote:
>Take that array of tuples and put a pointer to it in the parm list. And
>voila, you have only three parms, although two might be enough. The array
>entries can be defined much more flexibly than trying to cram the
>information into a list o
On 4/10/2018 7:14 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:
Seriously, I'm chary of doing something just to fit some arbitrary rule like
"more than n arguments is bad". This reminds me of the "GOTOs are bad": yes,
they often are, but there are plenty of cases where a simple GOTO makes the
code MUCH simpler. Tak
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 20:35:34 -0400, Tom Conley wrote:
>On 4/10/2018 7:14 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
>> Seriously, I'm chary of doing something just to fit some arbitrary rule like
>> "more than n arguments is bad". This reminds me of the "GOTOs are bad": yes,
>> they often are, but there are plen
On 11/04/2018 12:24 AM, Phil Smith III wrote:
arguments.
As a theological discussion, I find this interesting. Our case is like this
(and isn't Rexx, though it could be):
It may sound like dogma but It's a psychological theory known as Millers
law. Seven is a magic number for people’s c
ng();
is probably a bug waiting to happen, and it has only six arguments.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Phil Smith III
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 12:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Theology (was:
Phil Smith III wrote:
>>Why 100? Is it documented somewhere in some REXX bookies?
>As I said, this isn't a Rexx API, but the point of 100 was to pick a human
>number (not "666") that was way more than likely needed. We could have picked
>5, but that seems low; 10? 20?
Ok. I was just curious. T
David Crayford wrote:
>It may sound like dogma but It's a psychological theory known as Millers
>law. Seven is a magic number for people's comprehension. Psychological
>research has found that people generally cannot keep track of more than
>about seven chunks of information at once (Miller 195
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:31:43 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
>And ISTR was one of the reasons for seven-digit phone numbers. Either that
>or it was a happy accident, but I know I've read at least someone claiming
>it was chosen because "seven is magic". How many of us remember shorter
>numbers? I re
: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 11:13 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:31:43 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
>And ISTR was one of the reasons for seven-digit phone numbers. Either
>that or it was a happy acci
Gil wrote:
> I recall two letters and five digits, and earlier two letters (the first
two of
>a word) and four digits. An abbreviated word may be easier to remember
>than two arbitrary digits. But Telco gave up when they exhausted
>pronouncable digraphs.
Ah, the good old KLondike-5-. One
Phil Smith III wrote:
>Ah, the good old KLondike-5-. One of my favorite obsolete jokes:
What an obsolete good joke ... uh... zorry and sorry ... I meant Absolute
good joke! ;-D
>Just try explaining THAT one to a modern teen:
>Kid answers home phone? House HAS home phone? No CallerID?
Add to that (list of things incomprehensible today) a party line ... (not the
1-900 variety)
Chris Hoelscher
Technology Architect, Database Infrastructure Services
Technology Solution Services
Humana Inc.
123 East Main Street
Louisville, KY 40202
Humana.com
(502) 476-2538 or 407-7266
instruction
ments to a Rexx function call)
[External Email]
Add to that (list of things incomprehensible today) a party line ... (not the
1-900 variety)
Chris Hoelscher
Technology Architect, Database Infrastructure Services Technology Solution
Services Humana Inc.
123 East Main Street
Louisville, KY
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf
> Of Chris Hoelscher
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 2:06 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Theology (was: Many arguments to a Rexx function call)
>
> [External Email]
>
> Add to that (list of things incom
66 matches
Mail list logo
