Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Ed Finnell]

pds vol zzz public|private|stor
 
 
In a message dated 5/6/2015 11:48:38 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com writes:

Question: did I really need to do  that?


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Elardus Engelbrecht]

J O Skip Robinson wrote:

>Users needed a simple way to display percentage free space on a set of DASD 
>volumes identified by volser prefix. Simplest solution was to run our own 
>SPACE command, trap the output, do some calculations, and display the answer. 
>SPACE runs in subcommand mode, so issue SPACE followed by subcommands to get 
>desired output.

Uhhh, sorry, but what is 'subcommand mode'. This is certainly something I never 
heard of.

>I could not get this to work in REXX. As soon SPACE was entered, no 
>subcommands would be read from the stack until I manually entered 'end'. That 
>exited the SPACE command and lost all further processing opportunity.

>So I wrote a CLIST-first brand new one decades. I had to read the manual a 
>lot, made many mistakes, but got it working because CLIST handles subcommand 
>mode just fine. Question: did I really need to do that?

Ouch. You can use REXX to trap output. Perhaps if you can give me your 
sanitized version of SPACE and your CLIST, I could try to conjure up a REXX 
thing. No guarantees of course...

There are many examples of REXX programs floating around trapping output of 
another program or CLIST/REXX.

Alternatively, could you try something in REXX on a list of volsers in ISMF? Or 
REXX on a report of available space from ISMF?

Or could you rewrite SPACE to accept parameters instead of 'subcommands'? Then 
it is just one call and REXX/CLIST can trap everything for you.

Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Lizette Koehler]

Is this a SPACE command processor from cbttape.org or something home grown?
Is SPACE using TPUTS/TGETS?  It might make this behavior understandable.

I know with CLIST you can send an END command.  I will have to check out
rexx.  You may wish to post on the TSO/REXX list.  They may have more ideas.
Both CLIST and REXX discussed there.  Along with native TSO stuff.  ;-D

Lizette


> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of J O Skip Robinson
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 9:48 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Did I really need a CLIST???
> 
> Users needed a simple way to display percentage free space on a set of
> DASD volumes identified by volser prefix. Simplest solution was to run our
> own SPACE command, trap the output, do some calculations, and display the
> answer. SPACE runs in subcommand mode, so issue SPACE followed by
> subcommands to get desired output.
> 
> I could not get this to work in REXX. As soon SPACE was entered, no
> subcommands would be read from the stack until I manually entered 'end'.
> That exited the SPACE command and lost all further processing opportunity.
> 
> So I wrote a CLIST-first brand new one decades. I had to read the manual a
> lot, made many mistakes, but got it working because CLIST handles
> subcommand mode just fine. Question: did I really need to do that?
> 
> .
> .
> .
> J.O.Skip Robinson
> Southern California Edison Company
> Electric Dragon Team Paddler
> SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
> 626-302-7535 Office
> 323-715-0595 Mobile
> jo.skip.robin...@sce.com
> 
> 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[J O Skip Robinson]

Sorry for not making the issue clear. SPACE was likely written elsewhere long 
ago but modified here over the years. The problem is not how to trap output. It 
uses PUTLINE, so both REXX OUTTRAP and CLIST &SYSOUTTRAP work fine. The problem 
is 'subcommand mode'. Some standard IBM command processors work this way: OPER 
and TEST for example. You enter the command, then enter various subcommands 
until you're done, then type END. The PDS command runs in subcommand mode. 

I cannot get a REXX to work in subcommand mode. For example, 

x = OUTTRAP("cmdl.") 

QUEUE Vx
QUEUE END
SPACE 

In REXX, the SPACE command is entered but does not read from the stack. It just 
sits and waits forever for terminal input. Whatever is entered breaks the 
process. The corresponding CLIST works fine.

SET &SYSOUTTRAP = 1000
SPACE 
V&VOL_SER_PREFIX  
SET l = &SYSOUTLINE 
SET &SYSOUTTRAP = 0
SET i = 1   
  
DO WHILE &i <= &l 
  SET line = &STR(&&SYSOUTLINE&i)
  ...
ENDO

Of course I could rewrite SPACE to work differently, but I'm asking whether 
there is a REXX solution to handle subcommand mode.

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Lizette Koehler
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 10:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

Is this a SPACE command processor from cbttape.org or something home grown?
Is SPACE using TPUTS/TGETS?  It might make this behavior understandable.

I know with CLIST you can send an END command.  I will have to check out rexx.  
You may wish to post on the TSO/REXX list.  They may have more ideas.
Both CLIST and REXX discussed there.  Along with native TSO stuff.  ;-D

Lizette


> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
> On Behalf Of J O Skip Robinson
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 9:48 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Did I really need a CLIST???
> 
> Users needed a simple way to display percentage free space on a set of 
> DASD volumes identified by volser prefix. Simplest solution was to run 
> our own SPACE command, trap the output, do some calculations, and 
> display the answer. SPACE runs in subcommand mode, so issue SPACE 
> followed by subcommands to get desired output.
> 
> I could not get this to work in REXX. As soon SPACE was entered, no 
> subcommands would be read from the stack until I manually entered 'end'.
> That exited the SPACE command and lost all further processing opportunity.
> 
> So I wrote a CLIST-first brand new one decades. I had to read the 
> manual a lot, made many mistakes, but got it working because CLIST 
> handles subcommand mode just fine. Question: did I really need to do that?

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Itschak Mugzach]

I would check the status of the TSO profile PROMPT variable. When prompt is
ON (PROF PROMPT), the command will read the stack. If PROD NOPMROMT is set,
it will not. may be this is your case. Clist controls that with PROMPT
DATA-ENDDATA pair.

ITschak

ITschak Mugzach
Z/OS, ISV Products and Application Security & Risk Assessments Professional

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:09 PM, J O Skip Robinson 
wrote:

> Sorry for not making the issue clear. SPACE was likely written elsewhere
> long ago but modified here over the years. The problem is not how to trap
> output. It uses PUTLINE, so both REXX OUTTRAP and CLIST &SYSOUTTRAP work
> fine. The problem is 'subcommand mode'. Some standard IBM command
> processors work this way: OPER and TEST for example. You enter the command,
> then enter various subcommands until you're done, then type END. The PDS
> command runs in subcommand mode.
>
> I cannot get a REXX to work in subcommand mode. For example,
>
> x = OUTTRAP("cmdl.")
>
> QUEUE Vx
> QUEUE END
> SPACE
>
> In REXX, the SPACE command is entered but does not read from the stack. It
> just sits and waits forever for terminal input. Whatever is entered breaks
> the process. The corresponding CLIST works fine.
>
> SET &SYSOUTTRAP = 1000
> SPACE
> V&VOL_SER_PREFIX
> SET l = &SYSOUTLINE
> SET &SYSOUTTRAP = 0
> SET i = 1
>
> DO WHILE &i <= &l
>   SET line = &STR(&&SYSOUTLINE&i)
>   ...
> ENDO
>
> Of course I could rewrite SPACE to work differently, but I'm asking
> whether there is a REXX solution to handle subcommand mode.
>
> .
> .
> .
> J.O.Skip Robinson
> Southern California Edison Company
> Electric Dragon Team Paddler
> SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
> 626-302-7535 Office
> 323-715-0595 Mobile
> jo.skip.robin...@sce.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Lizette Koehler
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 10:49 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Did I really need a CLIST???
>
> Is this a SPACE command processor from cbttape.org or something home
> grown?
> Is SPACE using TPUTS/TGETS?  It might make this behavior understandable.
>
> I know with CLIST you can send an END command.  I will have to check out
> rexx.  You may wish to post on the TSO/REXX list.  They may have more ideas.
> Both CLIST and REXX discussed there.  Along with native TSO stuff.  ;-D
>
> Lizette
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> > On Behalf Of J O Skip Robinson
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 9:48 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Did I really need a CLIST???
> >
> > Users needed a simple way to display percentage free space on a set of
> > DASD volumes identified by volser prefix. Simplest solution was to run
> > our own SPACE command, trap the output, do some calculations, and
> > display the answer. SPACE runs in subcommand mode, so issue SPACE
> > followed by subcommands to get desired output.
> >
> > I could not get this to work in REXX. As soon SPACE was entered, no
> > subcommands would be read from the stack until I manually entered 'end'.
> > That exited the SPACE command and lost all further processing
> opportunity.
> >
> > So I wrote a CLIST-first brand new one decades. I had to read the
> > manual a lot, made many mistakes, but got it working because CLIST
> > handles subcommand mode just fine. Question: did I really need to do
> that?
>
> --
> 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: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
,
on 05/06/2015
   at 04:48 PM, J O Skip Robinson  said:

>Question: did I really need to do that?

In your particular case, you could have just pushed the required lines
onto the stack, assuming that SPACE is housebroken. If you need to
generat subcommands based on the results of previous subcommands, then
there is no way to do it in REXX.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[J O Skip Robinson]

I owe the List an update. Based on earlier advice, I added a PROFILE command to 
a skeleton REXX. When testing, to my astonishment, I could not reproduce my 
earlier problem. I tested with both PROMPT and NOPROMPT. No difference. Example 
below. I would not have waded into the CLIST manual if I had not (seemed to) 
hit a wall. I cannot explain it. 

BTW What advantage would PUSH have over QUEUE? I thought the only difference 
was LIFO vs. FIFO. QUEUE is easier to write and comprehend. This REXX gives the 
right result. ? is the help 'command'. vSYSX displays info for all SYSX* 
volumes.

/* REXX */  
x = OUTTRAP("cmdl.")
PROFILE   PROMPT
QUEUE "?"   
QUEUE "vSYSX"   
QUEUE "END" 
SPACE /* TSO SPACE command runs in subcommand mode */   
DO i = 1 TO cmdl.0  
  SAY cmdl.i
END 

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 3:15 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

In
,
on 05/06/2015
   at 04:48 PM, J O Skip Robinson  said:

>Question: did I really need to do that?

In your particular case, you could have just pushed the required lines onto the 
stack, assuming that SPACE is housebroken. If you need to generat subcommands 
based on the results of previous subcommands, then there is no way to do it in 
REXX.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
,
on 05/15/2015
   at 04:59 PM, J O Skip Robinson  said:

>BTW What advantage would PUSH have over QUEUE?

Why would one have an advantage over the other?

>I thought the only difference was LIFO vs. FIFO.

Yes.

>QUEUE is easier to write and comprehend. 

No and no. PUSH is one letter shorter. Comprehension depends on what
you are trying to do; QUEUE is a bear if you need FILO behavior. Don't
confuse what is easier in one program for a general rule.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[J O Skip Robinson]

Shmuel, when was the last time you needed to process data LIFO? I mean really 
needed to, not just thought about a hypothetical case to tease the List with. 
When putting subcommands on the stack, by far the easiest method is to code 
them in the same order that you would type them. The same order that they will 
be executed. Easier to write. Easier to comprehend.

Coding subcommands in reverse order just to save one letter in each REXX 
command would be absurd. 

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 8:53 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

In
,
on 05/15/2015
   at 04:59 PM, J O Skip Robinson  said:

>BTW What advantage would PUSH have over QUEUE?

Why would one have an advantage over the other?

>I thought the only difference was LIFO vs. FIFO.

Yes.

>QUEUE is easier to write and comprehend. 

No and no. PUSH is one letter shorter. Comprehension depends on what you are 
trying to do; QUEUE is a bear if you need FILO behavior. Don't confuse what is 
easier in one program for a general rule.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Tom Brennan]

J O Skip Robinson wrote:
Coding subcommands in reverse order just to save one letter in each REXX command would be absurd. 


Completely you with agree I, Skip.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Wed, 20 May 2015 07:58:38 -0700, Tom Brennan wrote:

>J O Skip Robinson wrote:
>> Coding subcommands in reverse order just to save one letter in each REXX 
>> command would be absurd.
>
>Completely you with agree I, Skip.
> 
CMS/TSO Pipelines embodies a similar absurdity:

PIPE literal A 
   | literal B
   | literal C
   | console

displays:

C
B
A

I understand it was implemented that way because of performance concerns.

Pipelines, however, supports instream data, which Rexx sorely and peculiarly
among command languages lacks.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Elardus Engelbrecht]

Tom Brennan wrote:

>> Coding subcommands in reverse order just to save one letter in each REXX 
>> command would be absurd.

>Completely you with agree I, Skip.

I cannot code in reverse without Skipping your word play... ;-D

Friday, is it already?

Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[CM Poncelet]

Was there not a saying, a while ago, that "real programmers write in 
Fortran"? 


Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:


Tom Brennan wrote:

 


Coding subcommands in reverse order just to save one letter in each REXX 
command would be absurd.
 



 


Completely you with agree I, Skip.
   



I cannot code in reverse without Skipping your word play... ;-D

Friday, is it already?

Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht

--
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: Did I really need a CLIST???

[John McKown]

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:48 AM, CM Poncelet  wrote:

> Was there not a saying, a while ago, that "real programmers write in
> Fortran"? 


​Real programmers hand assemble and toggle the bits in, a byte at a time!​



>
>
> Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
>
>  Tom Brennan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Coding subcommands in reverse order just to save one letter in each REXX
 command would be absurd.


>>>
>>
>>
>>> Completely you with agree I, Skip.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I cannot code in reverse without Skipping your word play... ;-D Friday,
>> is it already? Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht
>> --
>> 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
>



-- 
If someone tell you that nothing is impossible:
Ask him to dribble a football.He's about as useful as a wax frying pan.10
to the 12th power microphones = 1 MegaphoneMaranatha! <>

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Shane Ginnane]

On Wed, 20 May 2015 07:58:38 -0700, Tom Brennan wrote:

>J O Skip Robinson wrote:
>> Coding subcommands in reverse order just to save one letter in each REXX 
>> command would be absurd.
>
>Completely you with agree I, Skip.

Tom gets my vote for this years Yoda award.

Shane ...

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <6407793781448887.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu>, on
05/20/2015
   at 10:25 AM, Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> said:

>CMS/TSO Pipelines embodies a similar absurdity:

It's not absurd if it doe what it was designed for. Now, if there
isn't a command similar to literal but putting STDIN firt, *(that*
would be absurd.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <555ca11e.4000...@tombrennansoftware.com>, on 05/20/2015
   at 07:58 AM, Tom Brennan  said:

>J O Skip Robinson wrote:
>> Coding subcommands in reverse order just to save one letter in each REXX 
>> command would be absurd. 

>Completely you with agree I, Skip.

Is there a sale on straw dummies? Skip is rebutting a statement that I
never made. What I *actually* wrote was "No and no. PUSH is one letter
shorter. Comprehension depends on what you are trying to do; QUEUE is
a bear if you need FILO behavior. Don't confuse what is easier in one
program for a general rule..", in response to his "QUEUE is easier to
write and comprehend."

You have to carve the bird at the joints. Skips rejoinder makes no
sense as a response to what I wrote, and completely disregards the
"depends on what you are trying to do".
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In
,
on 05/20/2015
   at 01:14 PM, J O Skip Robinson  said:

>Shmuel, when was the last time you needed to process data LIFO?

The last time that I used REXX stack abilities. If anything, I use
PUSH more often than QUEUE. It cannot be said too often: YOU HAVE TO
CARVE THE BIRD AT THE JOINTS.

>I mean really needed to, not just thought about a hypothetical case
>to tease the List with. 

When was the last time that you took someone's comments at face value
instead of assuming that they had nothing to do with practical
experience? I've been using REXX for decades, and my comments on best
practice represent that experience, especially those occassions when I
had to clean up someone else's code.

>When putting subcommands on the stack,

How is that relevant to the "which statementr is better" question, any
more than "which is bettwer, ++ or --?" would be for C? PUSH and QUEUE
do different things; if pounding your nail in with a saw doesn't work
well, that doesn't mean that it's a bad saw, just that you should have
used a hammer FOR THAT SPECIFIC TASK. Yes, the saw example was
hypothetical, but still very similar to what you're doing.

>Coding subcommands in reverse order just to save one letter in each
>REXX command would be absurd. 

Are you having a fire sale on straw dummies? That's not even remotely
related to anything that I wrote.

That said, I wish that IBM would port OREXX or OOREXX to CMS and TSO
making it at least the default z REXX if not the only one; the QUEUE
class would make all sorts of things easier.

-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Greg Shirey]

Not even remotely?  Okay, I'll bite.  What point were you trying to make by 
your comment "PUSH is one letter shorter." 

Thanks,
Greg Shirey
Ben E. Keith Company 

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:30 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

 

>Coding subcommands in reverse order just to save one letter in each 
>REXX command would be absurd.

Are you having a fire sale on straw dummies? That's not even remotely related 
to anything that I wrote.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Wed, 20 May 2015 15:08:44 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
>
>>CMS/TSO Pipelines embodies a similar absurdity:
>
>It's not absurd if it doe what it was designed for. Now, if there
>isn't a command similar to literal but putting STDIN firt, *(that*
>would be absurd.
> 
There is.  The APPEND modifier may be applied to any stage, not only
to LITERAL.  Absent APPEND, output from many stages appear as if
they were processed right-to-left.  I suppose this is highly intuitive to
programmers of certain ethnicities.

APPEND is deprecated by master Plumbers.  It degrades performance
by preventing deletion of stages when their processing is complete.
They proudly code their stages pushwise.

As much as possible, I avoid the stack; it's error prone (I know; PEBCAK).
Rather, I use stems.  A dangling compound member is easier to analyze
and far less painful than a mismatched PUSH.

And a few days ago I stumbled onto a Rexx EXEC, supplied by IBM
in CMS, which at one point painstakingly pulled the stack into a
stem so it could do something with the stack, then pushed everything
back onto the stack.  IIRC, didn't even employ CMS Pipeines which
could have done the two operations in one command each.  There's
much legacy CMS code which could benefit by Pipelines conversion.
Apparently some developers would rather carry water in buckets
than install a pipe.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <4b3542b643f5440c85f020c640da8...@corpexmbxda.bekco.com>, on
05/22/2015
   at 03:46 PM, Greg Shirey  said:

>Not even remotely?

No.

>What point were you trying to make by your comment "PUSH is one
>letter shorter."

That What point were you trying to make by your comment "PUSH is one
letter shorter."

That "QUEUE is easier to write" was a ludicorous claim. Which part of
"Don't confuse what is easier in one program for a general rule."
didn't you understand?
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[CM Poncelet]

I spake in jest (derived from the original "real men don't eat quiche"). 
Of course, real programmers read/write in machine code - but then also 
in conditional macro assembler if necessesary . Cheers, CP


John McKown wrote:


On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:48 AM, CM Poncelet  wrote:

 


Was there not a saying, a while ago, that "real programmers write in
Fortran"? 
   




​Real programmers hand assemble and toggle the bits in, a byte at a time!​



 


Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:

Tom Brennan wrote:
   



 


Coding subcommands in reverse order just to save one letter in each REXX
   


command would be absurd.


 

 


Completely you with agree I, Skip.


   


I cannot code in reverse without Skipping your word play... ;-D Friday,
is it already? Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht
--
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

   





 



--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Ted MacNEIL]

Real programmers don't document code
 It was hard to write; it should be hard to read!

-
-teD
-
  Original Message  
From: CM Poncelet
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 20:35
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: Did I really need a CLIST???

I spake in jest (derived from the original "real men don't eat quiche"). 
Of course, real programmers read/write in machine code - but then also 
in conditional macro assembler if necessesary . Cheers, CP

John McKown wrote:

>On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:48 AM, CM Poncelet  wrote:
>
> 
>
>>Was there not a saying, a while ago, that "real programmers write in
>>Fortran"? 
>> 
>>
>
>
>​Real programmers hand assemble and toggle the bits in, a byte at a time!​
>
>
>
> 
>
>>Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
>>
>> Tom Brennan wrote:
>> 
>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>>Coding subcommands in reverse order just to save one letter in each REXX
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>>command would be absurd.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>>Completely you with agree I, Skip.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>I cannot code in reverse without Skipping your word play... ;-D Friday,
>>>is it already? Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht
>>>--
>>>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
>>
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> 
>

--
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: Did I really need a CLIST???

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <20150524072331.5312595.17320.38...@yahoo.ca>, on 05/24/2015
   at 03:23 AM, Ted MacNEIL  said:

>Real programmers don't document code

ITYM real hackers don't document code.

Real men aren't afraid to do something just because some idiotic book
presents a stereotype as mandatory.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
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...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN