Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
It should be 133 anyway, makes coding for my 1403 line printer a cinch :) Why not 145 for the 1443 or 242 for the 3800? I'm still using up the 132 column printer layout sheets from 1975 :) -- Wayne V. Bickerdike -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:44:12 -0500, Rick Fochtman wrote: Which is more effieient for CLIST/REXX libraries? the choices are RECFM=FB, LRECL=255 or RECFM=FB,LRECL=80? I lean toward the VB-format... My personal preference is FB-80, not because it is more efficient but because that's the way IBM ships and maintains their CLIST and ReXX libraries. I don't like to have to take the extra step to convert them. I suspect that a VB copy takes up a little less space than the FB originals, but then you have an additional copy of those that you have to convert. Whichever way the shop is run today, converting to the other format is probably more trouble than it is worth, especially if you have many users with their own libraries that are concatenated with the system and product libraries. In any case, today's mainframe DASD sells for about $100 per GB and getting cheaper. How much should I care about a little more disk space? -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
Back in about 1989 I wrote some clists to be shipped as part of an IBM product. I *think* our shipped clists were in FB 80 format but I don't remember for sure. What I did was to keep my actual code in columns 9 through 72 so that the clist could be copied into either FB 80 or VB 255 with or without sequence numbers without clobbering any of the code. --Roger On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net shmuel%2bibm-m...@patriot.net wrote: In db9405830909102240xade49f9o9adc503905547...@mail.gmail.com, on 09/11/2009 at 03:40 PM, Wayne Bickerdike wayn...@gmail.com said: So many times have novices asked me why their REXX was failing and it was sequence numbers in 73-80. Can still happen for VB 255 No; for RECFM=VB the sequence numbers are on the left. However, the RENUM command used to be BAD for unnumbered RECFM=VB. Have they fixed it to shift the data right 8 columns before plugging in sequence numbers? It should be 133 anyway, makes coding for my 1403 line printer a cinch :) Why not 145 for the 1443 or 242 for the 3800? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
In 4aa9651c.4010...@ync.net, on 09/10/2009 at 03:44 PM, Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net said: Which is more effieient for CLIST/REXX libraries? the choices are RECFM=FB, LRECL=255 or RECFM=FB,LRECL=80? If you can't use RECFM=VB, then use the smallest LRECL that your code will fit into. Matching LRECL to your ISPF display width makes editing easier, which may be more important than efficiency. If you need to have existing libraries in SYSEXEC or SYSPROC then keep RECFM and LRECL consistent with what they will be concatenated into; it's not efficient if it doesn't work ;-) -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
In 32208482.1252616974481.javamail.r...@elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net, on 09/10/2009 at 05:09 PM, Lizette Koehler stars...@mindspring.com said: I think the Lrecl80 came from the punch card days. The people I worked with back in 1980 preferred the 80 byte record because they came from punch cards. Well, I started with EAM cards and I prefer RECFM=VB, LRECL=255. I do not recall when we were able to go from the 24x80 screen to mod3/mod4/mod5. The 3278-5 and the 3290 have been around for about three decades. With the advances of screen szie (162x??) I don't recall anything with that size; the 3290 was a maximum of 160 across. Of course, you can always define custom screen sizes in your 3270 simulator, but then you can do substantially more than 162 across. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
In 6134cdf9e3c17546be1c9d525bdeef95f07eebe...@hqmail.rocketsoftware.com, on 09/10/2009 at 06:04 PM, Bob Shannon bshan...@rocketsoftware.com said: With VLF, it pretty much doesn't matter. For SYSPROC; it does for SYSEXEC. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
In dc74548a025aff4a85f46926802a9b2303723...@chsa1035.share.beluni.net, on 09/11/2009 at 08:24 AM, Hunkeler Peter (KIUP 4) peter.hunke...@credit-suisse.com said: Interesting that you can see 80 characters in the 72 positions the ISPF editor has to display the data ;-) It would have been had he made such a claim; he didn't. ISPF/PDF EDIT uses only six columns for sequence numbers and does not display the change level unless you shift into the sequence field. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
In db9405830909102240xade49f9o9adc503905547...@mail.gmail.com, on 09/11/2009 at 03:40 PM, Wayne Bickerdike wayn...@gmail.com said: So many times have novices asked me why their REXX was failing and it was sequence numbers in 73-80. Can still happen for VB 255 No; for RECFM=VB the sequence numbers are on the left. However, the RENUM command used to be BAD for unnumbered RECFM=VB. Have they fixed it to shift the data right 8 columns before plugging in sequence numbers? It should be 133 anyway, makes coding for my 1403 line printer a cinch :) Why not 145 for the 1443 or 242 for the 3800? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
--- On Thu, 9/10/09, Lizette Koehler stars...@mindspring.com wrote: From: Lizette Koehler stars...@mindspring.com Subject: Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009, 4:09 PM I think the Lrecl80 came from the punch card days. The people I worked with back in 1980 preferred the 80 byte record because they came from punch cards. That plus the ease of seeing everything on one screen without having to scroll back and forth was great. But those days were more due to the limits of the terminals. I do not recall when we were able to go from the 24x80 screen to mod3/mod4/mod5. But that would be one reason many prefer the Lrecl80. With the advances of screen szie (162x??) you could see more at one time than before. I really do not think it was ever a standard, just a preference. IBM would ship some products clists (like DB2's) in both formats and you could choose which one you liked to use. My preference is still 80 byte, but I can always adapt to 255. Lizette Liz: IIRC the main issue was IEBUPDTE. It would only support FB 80/ multiples of 80 for the blocksize. It was a major issue (to us) at first because we had specified that clist libraries had to be VB. Somewhere in the 90's (?) IBM fixed the issue but not all of the products have been updated to do so(IIRC). I personally use VB to this day. The only issue is that there is an extra step in the install process to change the FB IBM datasets (for Clists) to VB. Someone along time ago put a file on the CBT tape to do this nicely. One of messy items in the whole mish mash is that some times a product does not tell you that library x is a clist library and you have to hunt around for them. I just got tire of the whole thing and do the conversion when I am doing the install I think I factored a days worth of work to do this. There are some side issues as you have to keep a lookout for the clist data sets that are updates and you must sort of monitor to see if anything is being affected with the SMP run. I do NOT like to handle the exceptions. I know I discussed with the applications people one day at a meeting about the possibility of going back to FB 80 but they unanimously demanded the VB. Again its a little bit of extra work during install that has to be done. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
That plus the ease of seeing everything on one screen without having to scroll back and forth was great. Interesting that you can see 80 characters in the 72 positions the ISPF editor has to display the data ;-) LRECL=72 would be the better choice, then. -- Peter Hunkeler Credit Suisse -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
For writing purpose, I prefer 80 bytes record, whatever is FB or VM. For program writing TSO commands to a file, a prefer 255 bytes. This way I don't have to cut it into a 80 bytes pieces. I don;t think a 255 bytes record is well readable. ITschak On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Hunkeler Peter (KIUP 4) peter.hunke...@credit-suisse.com wrote: That plus the ease of seeing everything on one screen without having to scroll back and forth was great. Interesting that you can see 80 characters in the 72 positions the ISPF editor has to display the data ;-) LRECL=72 would be the better choice, then. -- Peter Hunkeler Credit Suisse -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
I prefer VB255 for ease of editing - especially with modern 3270 emulators that support big-x-big geometry. I'm shooting from the hip here as I don't have access to a machine at the moment, but I've only ever been bitten by the RECFM=VB plus ISPF editor combo once. In the mid 1990's I created a RECFM VB data file with Rexx, then edited it with ISPF editor and found to my astonishment that if a record was exactly 8 bytes long it was saved with a blank appended - making it 9 bytes long! Not good for a data file! (that particular data file anyway). Not sure if that feature is still lurking - I vaguely recall it had something to do with not upsetting the PL/I or COBOL compiler which sometimes expected sequence numbers in cols 1 to 8. Cheers, Andrew -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
On Friday 11 September 2009 02:28, Ted MacNEIL wrote: o Industry standard? Not any more. (But I can remember when ISPF (at the time SPF) panels were distributed as VB; IBM later switched to FB (circa 1980?). Later, IIRC. I think it came out with XA. Also, that was the same time they renamed it and split out PDF. In 1980, the SPF FDP which was 5787-XT2 (Structured Programming Facility) became the SPF product 5668-009 (System Productivity Facility), installed under SMP, which does not support a PDS with RECFM=VB. The vast majority of CLIST/REXX libraries are defined with FB/80. Before you define one with VB/255, remember that you can NOT concatenate it with existing FB/80 libraries. Of course, it would be nice if concatenated CLIST/REXX libraries could be FB and VB, but I'm not sure IBM will make it possible in the future. Most of my products use the GETSEQ/GETDIR/GETMBR run-time routines which allow the concatenation of sequential and partitioned data sets with different DCB attributes. If I do it, IBM could do it also. -- Gilbert Saint-Flour GSF Software http://gsf-soft.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:44:40 +0200, Gilbert Saint-Flour wrote: In 1980, the SPF FDP which was 5787-XT2 (Structured Programming Facility) became the SPF product 5668-009 (System Productivity Facility), installed under SMP, which does not support a PDS with RECFM=VB. AFAIK, there was always at least partial suppord for PDS with RECFM=VB. They could always be delivered in SYSMODs in relative file format, but not in inline elements. Nowadays, with GIMDTS, there is no such restriction. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:32:59 +0300, Itschak Mugzach wrote: For writing purpose, I prefer 80 bytes record, whatever is FB or VM. For program writing TSO commands to a file, a prefer 255 bytes. This way I don't have to cut it into a 80 bytes pieces. And SYSIN data sets are no longer restricted to FB80. I employ this facility in jobs submitted either via FTP or with an Edit macro that submits jobs with the attributes of the file being edited rather than forcing them to FB 80 as the SUBmit command does. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:36:21 -0500, Andrew Armstrong wrote: edited it with ISPF editor and found to my astonishment that if a record was exactly 8 bytes long it was saved with a blank appended - making it 9 bytes long! Not good for a data file! (that particular data file anyway). Not sure if that feature is still lurking - I vaguely recall it had something to do with not upsetting the PL/I or COBOL compiler which sometimes expected sequence numbers in cols 1 to 8. It's apparently fixed in z/OS 1.7. Yy! I can't imagine that PL/I's or COBOL's expectation of sequence numbers is somehow assisted by adding a blank in col. 9. I can only imagine that some product had a defect that was triggered only by records with a data length of 8 (Subtract 13 from length, then EX MVC?), and that it was circumvented by changing the editor rather than by fixing the problem where it lay. Shamefully irresponsible; I suppose such an engineering decision was most plausible if the offender was ISPF itself. And ISPF Copy (3.3) no longer trims trailing blanks. Yy again! -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:38:21 +0200, Thomas Berg wrote: -Ursprungligt meddelande- [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] För Paul Gilmartin Is this comparing RECFM=VB to RECFM=FB with equivalent data length? I have long believed that this is because ISPF (and XEDIT) really don't understand variable length records; rather they pad each record with blanks on input to the maximum length; proceed as for FB; then strip trailing blanks on SAVE. Further evidence: it's surprisingly easy to overflow available REGION with a fairly small (on DASD) RECFM=VB file with only one very long record and many short records. If You with data length mean actual, existing data, not the LRECL of the dataset; then Yes. I'm using VB 32756/32760 as a way to catch all needs. When I then have 1000 rows in an existing member (this is a PDSE), it take someting like 3 seconds to repeat a row. (Line command R.) Then length of the data in a row is max 80 bytes. Indeed, I failed to write what I meant, length in the DCB. Your observation supports my surmise that ISPF (like XEDIT) pads all records to that length. This makes it somewhat unusable when You want/need to work fast. Which I normally do. This ought to be a topic for a performance APAR. You likely would get no better than SUG. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
There is always some historical reason that IBM would create a library with the FB/80 attribute. Gilbert is right i remember this also and we had problems when trying to concatenate a VB/255 Clist library. So most folks stuck with FB/80... Scott J Ford www.identityforge.com 'old dinosaurs still roam the earth..' From: Gilbert Saint-Flour usenet5...@yahoo.com To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 3:44:40 AM Subject: Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats On Friday 11 September 2009 02:28, Ted MacNEIL wrote: o Industry standard? Not any more. (But I can remember when ISPF (at the time SPF) panels were distributed as VB; IBM later switched to FB (circa 1980?). Later, IIRC. I think it came out with XA. Also, that was the same time they renamed it and split out PDF. In 1980, the SPF FDP which was 5787-XT2 (Structured Programming Facility) became the SPF product 5668-009 (System Productivity Facility), installed under SMP, which does not support a PDS with RECFM=VB. The vast majority of CLIST/REXX libraries are defined with FB/80. Before you define one with VB/255, remember that you can NOT concatenate it with existing FB/80 libraries. Of course, it would be nice if concatenated CLIST/REXX libraries could be FB and VB, but I'm not sure IBM will make it possible in the future. Most of my products use the GETSEQ/GETDIR/GETMBR run-time routines which allow the concatenation of sequential and partitioned data sets with different DCB attributes. If I do it, IBM could do it also. -- Gilbert Saint-Flour GSF Software http://gsf-soft.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
Never seen a problem with either format. Been around Rexx sin Ricck, Never seen a problem with either format. Been around Rexx since 1984 Scott J Ford www.identityforge.com From: Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 4:44:12 PM Subject: CLIST/REXX Library Formats I'm involved in a discussion (read argument) with co-workers where I'm currently doing a consulting gig. Which is more effieient for CLIST/REXX libraries? the choices are RECFM=FB, LRECL=255 or RECFM=FB,LRECL=80? I lean toward the VB-format, btt I have at least one person here insisting that FB/80 is a Industry standard and is absolutely mandatory. The libraries are NOT LLA/VLF managed. Opinions and/or criticisms, please. Rick -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
The rational choices are (IMHO) FB/80 or VB/255. 1. FB/255 makes no sense. 2. I tend to stick with FB/80 due to the use of ISPF edit -and- Mod 2/3/4 3270 emulation. Hayim _ Hayim Sokolsky, CISSP Mainframe Security Architect DTCC Corporate Information Security 18301 Bermuda Green Dr, MS 1-CIS Tampa FL 33647-1760 Tel. (813) 470-2177 Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu 2009.09.10 16:44 Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu To IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu cc Subject CLIST/REXX Library Formats I'm involved in a discussion (read argument) with co-workers where I'm currently doing a consulting gig. Which is more effieient for CLIST/REXX libraries? the choices are RECFM=FB, LRECL=255 or RECFM=FB,LRECL=80? I lean toward the VB-format, btt I have at least one person here insisting that FB/80 is a Industry standard and is absolutely mandatory. The libraries are NOT LLA/VLF managed. Opinions and/or criticisms, please. Rick -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html BR_ FONT size=2BR DTCC DISCLAIMER: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately and delete the email and any attachments from your system. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email./FONT -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
I think the Lrecl80 came from the punch card days. The people I worked with back in 1980 preferred the 80 byte record because they came from punch cards. That plus the ease of seeing everything on one screen without having to scroll back and forth was great. But those days were more due to the limits of the terminals. I do not recall when we were able to go from the 24x80 screen to mod3/mod4/mod5. But that would be one reason many prefer the Lrecl80. With the advances of screen szie (162x??) you could see more at one time than before. I really do not think it was ever a standard, just a preference. IBM would ship some products clists (like DB2's) in both formats and you could choose which one you liked to use. My preference is still 80 byte, but I can always adapt to 255. Lizette I'm involved in a discussion (read argument) with co-workers where I'm currently doing a consulting gig. Which is more effieient for CLIST/REXX libraries? the choices are RECFM=FB, LRECL=255 or RECFM=FB,LRECL=80? I lean toward the VB-format, btt I have at least one person here insisting that FB/80 is a Industry standard and is absolutely mandatory. The libraries are NOT LLA/VLF managed. Opinions and/or criticisms, please. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
I'm involved in a discussion (read argument) with co-workers where I'm currently doing a consulting gig. Which is more effieient for CLIST/REXX libraries? the choices are RECFM=FB, LRECL=255 or RECFM=FB,LRECL=80? I lean toward the VB-format, btt I have at least one person here insisting that FB/80 is a Industry standard and is absolutely mandatory. The libraries are NOT LLA/VLF managed. Every place I've ever worked at (that I can remember)which is maybe 10-12 different places, have all used RECFM=FB, LRECL=80 For what it's worth. Thanks, Tom Savor _ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. _ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman I'm involved in a discussion (read argument) with co-workers where I'm currently doing a consulting gig. Which is more effieient for CLIST/REXX libraries? the choices are RECFM=FB, LRECL=255 or RECFM=FB,LRECL=80? I lean toward the VB-format, btt I have at least one person here insisting that FB/80 is a Industry standard and is absolutely mandatory. The libraries are NOT LLA/VLF managed. Opinions and/or criticisms, please. Well, I don't know about Industry Standard, but based on empirical evidence RECFM=FB,LRECL=80 certainly is not mandatory. Example: The CLIST produced by IRRRID00, for one. -jc- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
Clists use to parse to the end of the record. One could enter a command on a line followed by comments, and clist would still parse to the end of record. Back in the day, VB performed better. With VLF, it pretty much doesn't matter. You indicated VLF is not a consideration so it really comes down to personal preference. I think VB is a PITA, so I never use it. IBM, and most vendors, ship FB format for Rexx and clists. If you like VB, and don't need to concatenate with FB, there is no compelling reason to change. Bob Shannon Rocket Software -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:44:12 -0500, Rick Fochtman wrote: I'm involved in a discussion (read argument) with co-workers where I'm currently doing a consulting gig. Which is more effieient for CLIST/REXX libraries? the choices are RECFM=FB, LRECL=255 or RECFM=FB,LRECL=80? I lean toward the VB-format, btt I have at least one person here insisting that FB/80 is a Industry standard and is absolutely mandatory. The libraries are NOT LLA/VLF managed. Opinions and/or criticisms, please. o First, silicon is cheaper than carbon. The criterion for more efficient should consider the cost of human resources, before computer resources. o Industry standard? Not any more. (But I can remember when ISPF (at the time SPF) panels were distributed as VB; IBM later switched to FB (circa 1980?). o When Rexx for TSO/E was first announced, I saw an IBM Intro publication which recommended VB without line numbers and liberal use of mixed case for human legibility (I sense MFC's hand here). I can no longer find that pub, and IBM imediately failed to walk their talk. o ISPF is the _only_ editor/viewer I know that won't soft-wrap long lines to fit the screen without scrolling back and forth (although some rely on auto-scrolling to follow the cursor). Particularly painful when I want to insert a few characters in a line that has more than 80 (or whatever) characters to the right of the insertion point. I need to Change and overtype. Or when I delete a character, a blank gets inserted at the point of the right screen boundary and I must scroll right and delete it. There should be a Requirement for ISPF (optionally, in profile) to soft-wrap long lines to screen width. (Or is there such a Requirement already?) I just go use another editor rather than fight it. (All our data sets are NFS exported.) -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
Length schmength, it depends what's in it. I use any PDS as a clist repository and allocate it whenever I need it. Most of the time I like whatever fits on my screen but I keep a 300 lrecl around in case I have a slew of really wide RACF commands, like a full width alter of installation data. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 3:44 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: CLIST/REXX Library Formats I'm involved in a discussion (read argument) with co-workers where I'm currently doing a consulting gig. Which is more effieient for CLIST/REXX libraries? the choices are RECFM=FB, LRECL=255 or RECFM=FB,LRECL=80? I lean toward the VB-format, btt I have at least one person here insisting that FB/80 is a Industry standard and is absolutely mandatory. The libraries are NOT LLA/VLF managed. Opinions and/or criticisms, please. Rick -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ___ No viruses found in this incoming message Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.8.3 http://www.iolo.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
o Industry standard? Not any more. (But I can remember when ISPF (at the time SPF) panels were distributed as VB; IBM later switched to FB (circa 1980?). Later, IIRC. I think it came out with XA. Also, that was the same time they renamed it and split out PDF. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CLIST/REXX Library Formats
VB 255 gives you more flexibility, I just find that long character strings are easier to code if you can use the whole 255 bytes. So many times have novices asked me why their REXX was failing and it was sequence numbers in 73-80. Can still happen for VB 255 but always seems to be that folks don't look in 73-80 because they can't see it without scrolling right on a standard terminal display. But having said that, my REXX lib is FB 80, for no good reason :) I also use some R4 REXX and Notepad doesn't care about FB 80. It should be 133 anyway, makes coding for my 1403 line printer a cinch :) ANSI rhymes with Nancy - real programmers use RECFM=FM On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote: o Industry standard? Not any more. (But I can remember when ISPF (at the time SPF) panels were distributed as VB; IBM later switched to FB (circa 1980?). Later, IIRC. I think it came out with XA. Also, that was the same time they renamed it and split out PDF. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- Wayne V. Bickerdike -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
