Re: "make" question
On 12/18/17 20:44, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 19:47:26 -0500, Rick Troth wrote: Anyway, it's not difficult to have your makefiles fix themselves, converting leading 8 blanks to a tab automagically. Some of the makefiles in and around CMS Make do exactly that: if they land on (for example) Linux, they get run through 'sed' to convert leading 8 blanks to a single tab. Doesn't this break a macro definition or a dependency rule that happens to start with 8 blanks? I did say limited scope. So I suppose it /could/, but IMLX I've never seen a macro nor rule that starts with 8 blanks. There must have been some reason Feldman chose instead of &lwsp. But the story I recall fondly is that after creating 'make' and turning it loose and then getting a good night's sleep, he fretted, "why did I give it such a stupid requirement?". (heavily paraphrased; "stupid" wording mine) -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- R; <>< -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "make" question
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 19:47:26 -0500, Rick Troth wrote: > >Anyway, it's not difficult to have your makefiles fix themselves, >converting leading 8 blanks to a tab automagically. Some of the >makefiles in and around CMS Make do exactly that: if they land on (for >example) Linux, they get run through 'sed' to convert leading 8 blanks >to a single tab. > Doesn't this break a macro definition or a dependency rule that happens to start with 8 blanks? -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "make" question
I cobbled up CMS Make (like three times, two being lost to former employers) and intentionally made "leading white space" count for "leading tab character". Seems to work, but I always only ever use a subset of full 'make' capability (on any platform). Anyway, it's not difficult to have your makefiles fix themselves, converting leading 8 blanks to a tab automagically. Some of the makefiles in and around CMS Make do exactly that: if they land on (for example) Linux, they get run through 'sed' to convert leading 8 blanks to a single tab. The idea is that "makefile" (or "Makefile" if you must) depends on some other "makefile.in", which is the master. On any platform, if "makefile.in" is newer, the recipe is triggered, and maybe is just ... sed 's#^#\t#' < makefile.in > makefile ... or something to that effect. (Might have to embed a real tab if your 'sed' is not smart enough.) Then you can edit your master rules files on 3270 without funky presentation and painful data entry incantations. Makefile with dependencies is messy but not unheard of. -- R; <>< On 12/18/17 13:42, Seymour J Metz wrote: Tabs were a bloody nuisance long before 3270 displays came along; in fact, they may have been worse on hardcopy terminals than on 3270s. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of John McKown Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 2:08 PM To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Subject: Re: "make" question On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Jack J. Woehr wrote: On 12/14/2017 7:25 AM, Gord Tomlin wrote: All the make tools share an annoying reliance on tab characters. This is somehow more pernicious than punch-card-column dependencies in traditional IBM tools? :) IMO, the use of tabs as a "data character" is only annoying to people stuck on a 3270 display. I have _no_ problems with them when I'm using ssh to get a UNIX shell. Boiled down, I will agree that using UNIX tools in a TSO (3270) environment is annoying. Equally annoying, to me, is the column dependencies when I editing an HLASM or COBOL program from the UNIX shell. And don't get me going on the "vi" that IBM distributes. -- Jack J. Woehr # Science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of http://secure-web.cisco.com/1ybTM2fIPP6WIfaVgbAVnswUzPnLdlv3Q8suGEuvNuIcWmlO1FeCilZ_8AhBDR-gmcGDcWhBJEMVBPDjtPo47Ec46mMyk-AOKheGSj1zNZIOcc1PcpkdPbisMbUUwXdyxchTPLkS9938zz2xTA-atthJaQg8nrixGqy71j40crWiVHjKaJvcMhcM9azcZhOXm_krOIUa8sblenqgCAnmtqbNSt3SM6rhLSb33bqcKbth50bY0xFf6E4s7hYftAcX6Jn6IIYuYLjj2sxSYKJ4Lid-vuodLYc4D758luythtRxrb0-N0X5-cas0_7vXj6XnN4ZzfOH5RrAwzTh8V-zKkU5HwMD6yW_7sAusgAdvov4FtuFtqpTgxabUa3aMKgLc/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.well.com%2F%7Ejax # thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe www.softwoehr.com # with a fine understanding of human fallibility. - Carl Sagan -- I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it. Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN --ClefOS 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
Re: "make" question
Tabs were a bloody nuisance long before 3270 displays came along; in fact, they may have been worse on hardcopy terminals than on 3270s. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of John McKown Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 2:08 PM To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Subject: Re: "make" question On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Jack J. Woehr wrote: > On 12/14/2017 7:25 AM, Gord Tomlin wrote: > >> All the make tools share an annoying reliance on tab characters. > > > This is somehow more pernicious than punch-card-column dependencies in > traditional IBM tools? :) IMO, the use of tabs as a "data character" is only annoying to people stuck on a 3270 display. I have _no_ problems with them when I'm using ssh to get a UNIX shell. Boiled down, I will agree that using UNIX tools in a TSO (3270) environment is annoying. Equally annoying, to me, is the column dependencies when I editing an HLASM or COBOL program from the UNIX shell. And don't get me going on the "vi" that IBM distributes. > -- > Jack J. Woehr # Science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of > http://secure-web.cisco.com/1ybTM2fIPP6WIfaVgbAVnswUzPnLdlv3Q8suGEuvNuIcWmlO1FeCilZ_8AhBDR-gmcGDcWhBJEMVBPDjtPo47Ec46mMyk-AOKheGSj1zNZIOcc1PcpkdPbisMbUUwXdyxchTPLkS9938zz2xTA-atthJaQg8nrixGqy71j40crWiVHjKaJvcMhcM9azcZhOXm_krOIUa8sblenqgCAnmtqbNSt3SM6rhLSb33bqcKbth50bY0xFf6E4s7hYftAcX6Jn6IIYuYLjj2sxSYKJ4Lid-vuodLYc4D758luythtRxrb0-N0X5-cas0_7vXj6XnN4ZzfOH5RrAwzTh8V-zKkU5HwMD6yW_7sAusgAdvov4FtuFtqpTgxabUa3aMKgLc/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.well.com%2F%7Ejax > # thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the > universe > www.softwoehr.com # with a fine understanding of human fallibility. - > Carl Sagan > -- I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it. 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
Re: Bad History (was: "make" question)
Keep in mind that originally POSIX and UNIX were different. IBM even documented the discrepancies between the two. AFAIK IEEE POSIX has been swallowed by the successor to X/OPEN and you now only need a single certification, but that wasn't the case at the time of the original MVSOE. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 11:11 AM To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Subject: Bad History (was: "make" question) On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 16:58:15 +0800, David Crayford wrote: > >... I would pick gmake 9/10 because it's pervasive and more >portable. If you work with open source software on z/OS gmake is a must >have. > I imagine: RFE: We want UNIX. IBM: Be more specific. Both: (After much deliberation) Single UNIX specification. And so it went. There's no formal specification of GNU Linux. Sigh. -- gil -- 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
Re: Bad History (was: "make" question)
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 18:29:37 -0600, John McKown wrote: >> >> RFE: We want UNIX. > >Not as I was told. U.S. Government said, basically, you can only bid a >POSIX compliant (and branded?) system for any I.T. purchase. To keep their >business, IBM grafted OpenEdition (original name) onto MVS. As time goes >on, it does get a bit better. > At that time that would have eliminated MacOS, Windows, Solaris, and Linux (at least). I understand Microsoft threw its weight around and the gummint said, "Close enough." z/OS, MacOS, Solaris, ... now make the cut, some with separately priced options. https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ Note conspicuous omissions. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "make" question
[Default] On 14 Dec 2017 11:07:32 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main john.archie.mck...@gmail.com (John McKown) wrote: >On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Jack J. Woehr wrote: > >> On 12/14/2017 7:25 AM, Gord Tomlin wrote: >> >>> All the make tools share an annoying reliance on tab characters. >> >> >> This is somehow more pernicious than punch-card-column dependencies in >> traditional IBM tools? :) > > >?IMO, the use of tabs as a "data character" is only annoying to people >stuck on a 3270 display. I have _no_ problems with them when I'm using ssh >to get a UNIX shell. Boiled down, I will agree that using UNIX tools in a >TSO (3270) environment is annoying.? Equally annoying, to me, is the >column dependencies when I editing an HLASM or COBOL program from the UNIX >shell. And don't get me going on the "vi" that IBM distributes. > Has IBM implemented the free-form option for compiling COBOL in the 2002 standard? Clark Morris > >> -- >> Jack J. Woehr # Science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of >> www.well.com/~jax # thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the >> universe >> www.softwoehr.com # with a fine understanding of human fallibility. - >> Carl Sagan >> -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Bad History (was: "make" question)
On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Paul Gilmartin < 000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 16:58:15 +0800, David Crayford wrote: > > > >... I would pick gmake 9/10 because it's pervasive and more > >portable. If you work with open source software on z/OS gmake is a must > >have. > > > I imagine: > > RFE: We want UNIX. > Not as I was told. U.S. Government said, basically, you can only bid a POSIX compliant (and branded?) system for any I.T. purchase. To keep their business, IBM grafted OpenEdition (original name) onto MVS. As time goes on, it does get a bit better. > > IBM: Be more specific. > > Both: (After much deliberation) Single UNIX specification. > > And so it went. There's no formal specification of GNU Linux. > > Sigh. > > -- gil > > -- I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it. Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Bad History (was: "make" question)
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 16:58:15 +0800, David Crayford wrote: > >... I would pick gmake 9/10 because it's pervasive and more >portable. If you work with open source software on z/OS gmake is a must >have. > I imagine: RFE: We want UNIX. IBM: Be more specific. Both: (After much deliberation) Single UNIX specification. And so it went. There's no formal specification of GNU Linux. Sigh. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "make" question
On 14/12/2017 10:25 PM, Gord Tomlin wrote: z/OS make != gmake != nmake (Microsoft's version). If you are collaborating with others at work, it makes sense to standardize on one make tool. Agreed. I would pick gmake 9/10 because it's pervasive and more portable. If you work with open source software on z/OS gmake is a must have. Although I haven't tried, it is likely possible to create a (very ugly) Makefile that can react to which make tool is being used. CMake flattens a lot of those problems although I won't generate z/OS makefiles. We have a z/OS CMake port. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "make" question
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 01:58:34 +, Frank Swarbrick wrote: >I wrote my first "makefile" today. Took me some time to understand the >requirement for tab characters. Having only the ISPF editor (oedit), tab >characters are not very friendly on 3270 screens. > Does ISPF (under oedit's covers) support character translation? If so, map something you can type with the ALT key such as ® or ¥ and which you don't use much otherwise to/from x'05', the EBCDIC tab. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "make" question
On 2017-12-14 13:56, Jack J. Woehr wrote: On 12/14/2017 7:25 AM, Gord Tomlin wrote: All the make tools share an annoying reliance on tab characters. This is somehow more pernicious than punch-card-column dependencies in traditional IBM tools? :) Neither is great, but at least you can see the sequence numbers! :D -- Regards, Gord Tomlin Action Software International (a division of Mazda Computer Corporation) Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507 Support: https://actionsoftware.com/support/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "make" question
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Jack J. Woehr wrote: > On 12/14/2017 7:25 AM, Gord Tomlin wrote: > >> All the make tools share an annoying reliance on tab characters. > > > This is somehow more pernicious than punch-card-column dependencies in > traditional IBM tools? :) IMO, the use of tabs as a "data character" is only annoying to people stuck on a 3270 display. I have _no_ problems with them when I'm using ssh to get a UNIX shell. Boiled down, I will agree that using UNIX tools in a TSO (3270) environment is annoying. Equally annoying, to me, is the column dependencies when I editing an HLASM or COBOL program from the UNIX shell. And don't get me going on the "vi" that IBM distributes. > -- > Jack J. Woehr # Science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of > www.well.com/~jax # thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the > universe > www.softwoehr.com # with a fine understanding of human fallibility. - > Carl Sagan > -- I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it. Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "make" question
On 12/14/2017 7:25 AM, Gord Tomlin wrote: All the make tools share an annoying reliance on tab characters. This is somehow more pernicious than punch-card-column dependencies in traditional IBM tools? :) -- Jack J. Woehr # Science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of www.well.com/~jax # thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe www.softwoehr.com # with a fine understanding of human fallibility. - Carl Sagan -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "make" question
Interesting workaround. Not sure I'll use it, but good to know about. From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of John McKown Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 8:12 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: "make" question On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Paul Gilmartin < 000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:25:45 -0500, Gord Tomlin wrote: > > > >All the make tools share an annoying reliance on tab characters. > > > Actually, some (I don't recall which) will accept indention by blanks. > > Tab was a bad design choice. > > -- gil > I haven't tried the following (at bottom of page) https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2131213/can-you-make-valid-makefiles-without-tab-characters There is a convoluted way of have a valid makefile without tabs. If you change your makefile to read: target: dependencies; command1; command2 If will work. If you want it on more than one line, then you can do: target: dependencies; \ command1; \ command2 Messy, but it works. -- I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it. 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
Re: "make" question
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Paul Gilmartin < 000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:25:45 -0500, Gord Tomlin wrote: > > > >All the make tools share an annoying reliance on tab characters. > > > Actually, some (I don't recall which) will accept indention by blanks. > > Tab was a bad design choice. > > -- gil > I haven't tried the following (at bottom of page) https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2131213/can-you-make-valid-makefiles-without-tab-characters There is a convoluted way of have a valid makefile without tabs. If you change your makefile to read: target: dependencies; command1; command2 If will work. If you want it on more than one line, then you can do: target: dependencies; \ command1; \ command2 Messy, but it works. -- I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it. Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "make" question
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:25:45 -0500, Gord Tomlin wrote: > >All the make tools share an annoying reliance on tab characters. > Actually, some (I don't recall which) will accept indention by blanks. Tab was a bad design choice. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "make" question
On 2017-12-14 06:52, Steve Smith wrote: I use z/OS make! Out of lack of experience, I guess, but it seems to do its job OK. We ran into some issues when one developer was accidentally using gnu make. It produced a bunch of mysterious errors, and took us a while to figure out. So, makefiles don't seem to be compatible between them (generalizing from my one example). I usually edit in ISPF. For the tabs, I use something rare, like ~ or @@, then before saving, do a change all to x'05'. And the inverse when editing, if needed. Much of the time, you can edit around the tabs just fine. But I really dislike invisible characters, and it seems like a silly way to do things. z/OS make != gmake != nmake (Microsoft's version). If you are collaborating with others at work, it makes sense to standardize on one make tool. Although I haven't tried, it is likely possible to create a (very ugly) Makefile that can react to which make tool is being used. All the make tools share an annoying reliance on tab characters. -- Regards, Gord Tomlin Action Software International (a division of Mazda Computer Corporation) Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507 Support: https://actionsoftware.com/support/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "make" question
I use z/OS make! Out of lack of experience, I guess, but it seems to do its job OK. We ran into some issues when one developer was accidentally using gnu make. It produced a bunch of mysterious errors, and took us a while to figure out. So, makefiles don't seem to be compatible between them (generalizing from my one example). I usually edit in ISPF. For the tabs, I use something rare, like ~ or @@, then before saving, do a change all to x'05'. And the inverse when editing, if needed. Much of the time, you can edit around the tabs just fine. But I really dislike invisible characters, and it seems like a silly way to do things. sas On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:40:14 +0800, David Crayford wrote: > >>Swing by Rockets ported talks and download and install gmake. Nobody >>uses the z/OS make including IBM developers. >> > It would have been a boon if Unix System services had been ASCII-based rather > than > EBCDIC, and relied on GNU tools. > >>On 14/12/2017 9:58 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote: >>> I wrote my first "makefile" today. Took me some time to understand the >>> requirement for tab characters. Having only the ISPF editor (oedit), tab >>> characters are not very friendly on 3270 screens. >>> > There ought to be an RFE here. Tab could be handled cleverly on a 3270 > screen. > > But ISPF is perhaps not the best editor for makefiles or many other UNIXy > tools. > > EBCDIC tab is x'05'. > >>> GNUMake has an special variable called ".RECIPEPREFIX" that allows >>> replacement of the tab character with another character. This does not >>> appear to be an option on z/OS. Does z/OS by chance have anything similar, >>> perhaps with a different name? > > -- gil > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- sas -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "make" question
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:40:14 +0800, David Crayford wrote: >Swing by Rockets ported talks and download and install gmake. Nobody >uses the z/OS make including IBM developers. > It would have been a boon if Unix System services had been ASCII-based rather than EBCDIC, and relied on GNU tools. >On 14/12/2017 9:58 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote: >> I wrote my first "makefile" today. Took me some time to understand the >> requirement for tab characters. Having only the ISPF editor (oedit), tab >> characters are not very friendly on 3270 screens. >> There ought to be an RFE here. Tab could be handled cleverly on a 3270 screen. But ISPF is perhaps not the best editor for makefiles or many other UNIXy tools. EBCDIC tab is x'05'. >> GNUMake has an special variable called ".RECIPEPREFIX" that allows >> replacement of the tab character with another character. This does not >> appear to be an option on z/OS. Does z/OS by chance have anything similar, >> perhaps with a different name? -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "make" question
Swing by Rockets ported talks and download and install gmake. Nobody uses the z/OS make including IBM developers. On 14/12/2017 9:58 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote: I wrote my first "makefile" today. Took me some time to understand the requirement for tab characters. Having only the ISPF editor (oedit), tab characters are not very friendly on 3270 screens. GNUMake has an special variable called ".RECIPEPREFIX" that allows replacement of the tab character with another character. This does not appear to be an option on z/OS. Does z/OS by chance have anything similar, perhaps with a different name? Thanks, Frank -- 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
"make" question
I wrote my first "makefile" today. Took me some time to understand the requirement for tab characters. Having only the ISPF editor (oedit), tab characters are not very friendly on 3270 screens. GNUMake has an special variable called ".RECIPEPREFIX" that allows replacement of the tab character with another character. This does not appear to be an option on z/OS. Does z/OS by chance have anything similar, perhaps with a different name? Thanks, Frank -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN