Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

2023-05-22 Thread David Crayford 
It produces excellent quality code. I discussed this with my colleague and we 
agreed that it produces code of better quality then a lot of senior devs. When 
it’s capable of code reviews it’s a major game changer. 

> On 22 May 2023, at 3:56 pm, Seymour J Metz  wrote:
> 
> Its utility will depend on the quality of the code it produces. Can it be 
> trained to produce clean maintainable code?
> 
> 
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
> 
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
> David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 11:57 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)
> 
>> On 22 May 2023, at 8:15 am, Farley, Peter 
>> <031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Please explain what "co-pilot" in this context means.  I am not familiar 
>> with that reference.
> 
> Github co-pilot is an AI programming assistant. You can ask it to do things 
> like write a search algorithm or a Java servlet application. It’s powered by 
> OpenAI the deep learning technology used by ChatGPT. It builds its language 
> model from millions of lines of open source code. I’m interested if it could 
> be trained on large legacy code bases written in languages like COBOL. This 
> would be very useful onboarding next gen developers as the inevitable skills 
> shortage is already starting to bite.
> 
> I doubt that ISPF will be used by next gen devs who are being trained to use 
> VS Code which supports copilot. It’s not just for GUI IDEs though, Microsoft 
> have released a Vim (neovim) plugin https://github.com/github/copilot.vim.
> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
>> David Crayford
>> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 7:47 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)
>> 
>> Has anybody developed a co-pilot plugin for ISPF yet? :)
>> 
>>> On 21 May 2023, at 3:42 pm, Seymour J Metz  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Well, I am a TSO bigot and grew up on CLIST, but once I had REXX available 
>>> in TSO/E I bid CLIST a fond AMF. As is common in such cases, while REXX is 
>>> in general far better than EXEC2 and CLIST, there are things that that it 
>>> lacks.
>>> 
>>> ISPF versus XEDIT is harder.ISPF has significant advantages as an 
>>> application framework, and ISPF/PDF EDIT has some nice features that XEDIT 
>>> lacks, but XEDIT is on balance a much better editor.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>>> 
>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on
>>> behalf of Jack Zukt [jzuk...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2023 3:55 AM
>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> That made for some interesting reading. I was quite proficient with
>>> REXX and XEDIT before moving to MVS and ISPF. The first MVS I worked
>>> with did not yet have REXX. It was helish doing the transition to ISPF and 
>>> CLIST.
>>> I still find VM help much better than MVS's. One of the first things
>>> that I do when starting on a new MVS system is to put an edit macro
>>> named QQ on the SYSPROC or SYSEXEC concatenation, so that I do not
>>> have to write CANCEL. I really do not like having that on a pfkey. Too
>>> much grief because of that.
>>> I find that XEDIT environment capabilities permit us to tailor our
>>> working environment far more than ISPF but, as always, I think that
>>> has more to do with our path than with the products themselves.
>>> As I said at the beginning, it really was an interesting reading.
>>> Regards
>>> Jack
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, May 20, 2023, 00:08 Paul Gilmartin <
>>>> 042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, 19 May 2023 18:32:57 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> I was trying to automate that in a macro on PF3.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yeah, that makes sense.
>>>>> 
>>>> I learned a smattering of ISPF before any XEDIT; the latter in the
>>>> era before PQUIT and QQIT intruded: the wrong solution.  But I
>>>> immediately longed for ISPF's smart END which did a Save only when
>>>> needed and left the time

Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

2023-05-22 Thread Seymour J Metz 
Its utility will depend on the quality of the code it produces. Can it be 
trained to produce clean maintainable code?


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 11:57 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

> On 22 May 2023, at 8:15 am, Farley, Peter 
> <031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> Please explain what "co-pilot" in this context means.  I am not familiar with 
> that reference.

Github co-pilot is an AI programming assistant. You can ask it to do things 
like write a search algorithm or a Java servlet application. It’s powered by 
OpenAI the deep learning technology used by ChatGPT. It builds its language 
model from millions of lines of open source code. I’m interested if it could be 
trained on large legacy code bases written in languages like COBOL. This would 
be very useful onboarding next gen developers as the inevitable skills shortage 
is already starting to bite.

I doubt that ISPF will be used by next gen devs who are being trained to use VS 
Code which supports copilot. It’s not just for GUI IDEs though, Microsoft have 
released a Vim (neovim) plugin https://github.com/github/copilot.vim.

>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
> David Crayford
> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 7:47 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)
>
> Has anybody developed a co-pilot plugin for ISPF yet? :)
>
>> On 21 May 2023, at 3:42 pm, Seymour J Metz  wrote:
>>
>> Well, I am a TSO bigot and grew up on CLIST, but once I had REXX available 
>> in TSO/E I bid CLIST a fond AMF. As is common in such cases, while REXX is 
>> in general far better than EXEC2 and CLIST, there are things that that it 
>> lacks.
>>
>> ISPF versus XEDIT is harder.ISPF has significant advantages as an 
>> application framework, and ISPF/PDF EDIT has some nice features that XEDIT 
>> lacks, but XEDIT is on balance a much better editor.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>> 
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on
>> behalf of Jack Zukt [jzuk...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2023 3:55 AM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)
>>
>> Hi,
>> That made for some interesting reading. I was quite proficient with
>> REXX and XEDIT before moving to MVS and ISPF. The first MVS I worked
>> with did not yet have REXX. It was helish doing the transition to ISPF and 
>> CLIST.
>> I still find VM help much better than MVS's. One of the first things
>> that I do when starting on a new MVS system is to put an edit macro
>> named QQ on the SYSPROC or SYSEXEC concatenation, so that I do not
>> have to write CANCEL. I really do not like having that on a pfkey. Too
>> much grief because of that.
>> I find that XEDIT environment capabilities permit us to tailor our
>> working environment far more than ISPF but, as always, I think that
>> has more to do with our path than with the products themselves.
>> As I said at the beginning, it really was an interesting reading.
>> Regards
>> Jack
>>
>>> On Sat, May 20, 2023, 00:08 Paul Gilmartin <
>>> 042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 19 May 2023 18:32:57 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>>>>  ...
>>>>> I was trying to automate that in a macro on PF3.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that makes sense.
>>>>
>>> I learned a smattering of ISPF before any XEDIT; the latter in the
>>> era before PQUIT and QQIT intruded: the wrong solution.  But I
>>> immediately longed for ISPF's smart END which did a Save only when
>>> needed and left the timestamp unchanged otherwise.
>>>
>>> And I was irritated by XEDIT's behavior of *always* scrolling to
>>> center the target of a successful search, usually needlessly
>>>
>>> And it was disappointing that the XEDIT-based *LIST menus always ran
>>> in separate rings, never sharing with each other, PEEK, and XEDIT.
>>> They should have used ADDRESS XEDIT instead of CMS.
>>>
>>> I wasted too much time scripting around such things, never modifying
>>> IBM code, only using undocumented interfaces.
>>> And it all went for naught when a major update broke them
>

Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

2023-05-21 Thread David Crayford 
> On 22 May 2023, at 8:15 am, Farley, Peter 
> <031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> Please explain what "co-pilot" in this context means.  I am not familiar with 
> that reference.

Github co-pilot is an AI programming assistant. You can ask it to do things 
like write a search algorithm or a Java servlet application. It’s powered by 
OpenAI the deep learning technology used by ChatGPT. It builds its language 
model from millions of lines of open source code. I’m interested if it could be 
trained on large legacy code bases written in languages like COBOL. This would 
be very useful onboarding next gen developers as the inevitable skills shortage 
is already starting to bite. 

I doubt that ISPF will be used by next gen devs who are being trained to use VS 
Code which supports copilot. It’s not just for GUI IDEs though, Microsoft have 
released a Vim (neovim) plugin https://github.com/github/copilot.vim.

> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
> David Crayford
> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 7:47 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)
> 
> Has anybody developed a co-pilot plugin for ISPF yet? :)
> 
>> On 21 May 2023, at 3:42 pm, Seymour J Metz  wrote:
>> 
>> Well, I am a TSO bigot and grew up on CLIST, but once I had REXX available 
>> in TSO/E I bid CLIST a fond AMF. As is common in such cases, while REXX is 
>> in general far better than EXEC2 and CLIST, there are things that that it 
>> lacks.
>> 
>> ISPF versus XEDIT is harder.ISPF has significant advantages as an 
>> application framework, and ISPF/PDF EDIT has some nice features that XEDIT 
>> lacks, but XEDIT is on balance a much better editor.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>> 
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on 
>> behalf of Jack Zukt [jzuk...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2023 3:55 AM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)
>> 
>> Hi,
>> That made for some interesting reading. I was quite proficient with 
>> REXX and XEDIT before moving to MVS and ISPF. The first MVS I worked 
>> with did not yet have REXX. It was helish doing the transition to ISPF and 
>> CLIST.
>> I still find VM help much better than MVS's. One of the first things 
>> that I do when starting on a new MVS system is to put an edit macro 
>> named QQ on the SYSPROC or SYSEXEC concatenation, so that I do not 
>> have to write CANCEL. I really do not like having that on a pfkey. Too 
>> much grief because of that.
>> I find that XEDIT environment capabilities permit us to tailor our 
>> working environment far more than ISPF but, as always, I think that 
>> has more to do with our path than with the products themselves.
>> As I said at the beginning, it really was an interesting reading.
>> Regards
>> Jack
>> 
>>> On Sat, May 20, 2023, 00:08 Paul Gilmartin < 
>>> 042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 19 May 2023 18:32:57 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>>>>  ...
>>>>> I was trying to automate that in a macro on PF3.
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah, that makes sense.
>>>> 
>>> I learned a smattering of ISPF before any XEDIT; the latter in the 
>>> era before PQUIT and QQIT intruded: the wrong solution.  But I 
>>> immediately longed for ISPF's smart END which did a Save only when 
>>> needed and left the timestamp unchanged otherwise.
>>> 
>>> And I was irritated by XEDIT's behavior of *always* scrolling to 
>>> center the target of a successful search, usually needlessly
>>> 
>>> And it was disappointing that the XEDIT-based *LIST menus always ran 
>>> in separate rings, never sharing with each other, PEEK, and XEDIT.  
>>> They should have used ADDRESS XEDIT instead of CMS.
>>> 
>>> I wasted too much time scripting around such things, never modifying 
>>> IBM code, only using undocumented interfaces.
>>> And it all went for naught when a major update broke them
>>> 
> --
> 
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the 
> addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If 
> the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized 
> representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
> dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail 
> and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
> 
> 
> --
> 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: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

2023-05-21 Thread Paul Gilmartin 
On Mon, 22 May 2023 00:15:52 +, Farley, Peter wrote:

>Please explain what "co-pilot" in this context means.  I am not familiar with 
>that reference.
>
GIYF?  ?

-- 
gil

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

Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

2023-05-21 Thread Farley, Peter 
Please explain what "co-pilot" in this context means.  I am not familiar with 
that reference.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
David Crayford
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 7:47 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

Has anybody developed a co-pilot plugin for ISPF yet? :)

> On 21 May 2023, at 3:42 pm, Seymour J Metz  wrote:
> 
> Well, I am a TSO bigot and grew up on CLIST, but once I had REXX available 
> in TSO/E I bid CLIST a fond AMF. As is common in such cases, while REXX is in 
> general far better than EXEC2 and CLIST, there are things that that it lacks.
> 
> ISPF versus XEDIT is harder.ISPF has significant advantages as an application 
> framework, and ISPF/PDF EDIT has some nice features that XEDIT lacks, but 
> XEDIT is on balance a much better editor.
> 
> 
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on 
> behalf of Jack Zukt [jzuk...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2023 3:55 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)
> 
> Hi,
> That made for some interesting reading. I was quite proficient with 
> REXX and XEDIT before moving to MVS and ISPF. The first MVS I worked 
> with did not yet have REXX. It was helish doing the transition to ISPF and 
> CLIST.
> I still find VM help much better than MVS's. One of the first things 
> that I do when starting on a new MVS system is to put an edit macro 
> named QQ on the SYSPROC or SYSEXEC concatenation, so that I do not 
> have to write CANCEL. I really do not like having that on a pfkey. Too 
> much grief because of that.
> I find that XEDIT environment capabilities permit us to tailor our 
> working environment far more than ISPF but, as always, I think that 
> has more to do with our path than with the products themselves.
> As I said at the beginning, it really was an interesting reading.
> Regards
> Jack
> 
>> On Sat, May 20, 2023, 00:08 Paul Gilmartin < 
>> 042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 19 May 2023 18:32:57 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>>>   ...
>>>> I was trying to automate that in a macro on PF3.
>>> 
>>> Yeah, that makes sense.
>>> 
>> I learned a smattering of ISPF before any XEDIT; the latter in the 
>> era before PQUIT and QQIT intruded: the wrong solution.  But I 
>> immediately longed for ISPF's smart END which did a Save only when 
>> needed and left the timestamp unchanged otherwise.
>> 
>> And I was irritated by XEDIT's behavior of *always* scrolling to 
>> center the target of a successful search, usually needlessly
>> 
>> And it was disappointing that the XEDIT-based *LIST menus always ran 
>> in separate rings, never sharing with each other, PEEK, and XEDIT.  
>> They should have used ADDRESS XEDIT instead of CMS.
>> 
>> I wasted too much time scripting around such things, never modifying 
>> IBM code, only using undocumented interfaces.
>> And it all went for naught when a major update broke them
>> 
--

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee 
and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader 
of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any 
attachments from your system.


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

Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

2023-05-21 Thread David Crayford 
Has anybody developed a co-pilot plugin for ISPF yet? :)

> On 21 May 2023, at 3:42 pm, Seymour J Metz  wrote:
> 
> Well, I am a TSO bigot and grew up on CLIST, but once I had REXX available 
> in TSO/E I bid CLIST a fond AMF. As is common in such cases, while REXX is in 
> general far better than EXEC2 and CLIST, there are things that that it lacks.
> 
> ISPF versus XEDIT is harder.ISPF has significant advantages as an application 
> framework, and ISPF/PDF EDIT has some nice features that XEDIT lacks, but 
> XEDIT is on balance a much better editor.
> 
> 
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
> 
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
> Jack Zukt [jzuk...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2023 3:55 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)
> 
> Hi,
> That made for some interesting reading. I was quite proficient with REXX
> and XEDIT before moving to MVS and ISPF. The first MVS I worked with did
> not yet have REXX. It was helish doing the transition to ISPF and CLIST.
> I still find VM help much better than MVS's. One of the first things that I
> do when starting on a new MVS system is to put an edit macro named QQ on
> the SYSPROC or SYSEXEC concatenation, so that I do not have to write
> CANCEL. I really do not like having that on a pfkey. Too much grief because
> of that.
> I find that XEDIT environment capabilities permit us to tailor our working
> environment far more than ISPF but, as always, I think that has more to do
> with our path than with the products themselves.
> As I said at the beginning, it really was an interesting reading.
> Regards
> Jack
> 
>> On Sat, May 20, 2023, 00:08 Paul Gilmartin <
>> 042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 19 May 2023 18:32:57 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>>>   ...
>>>> I was trying to automate that in a macro on PF3.
>>> 
>>> Yeah, that makes sense.
>>> 
>> I learned a smattering of ISPF before any XEDIT; the latter in the
>> era before PQUIT and QQIT intruded: the wrong solution.  But
>> I immediately longed for ISPF's smart END which did a Save only
>> when needed and left the timestamp unchanged otherwise.
>> 
>> And I was irritated by XEDIT's behavior of *always* scrolling to
>> center the target of a successful search, usually needlessly
>> 
>> And it was disappointing that the XEDIT-based *LIST menus always
>> ran in separate rings, never sharing with each other, PEEK, and
>> XEDIT.  They should have used ADDRESS XEDIT instead of CMS.
>> 
>> I wasted too much time scripting around such things, never
>> modifying IBM code, only using undocumented interfaces.
>> And it all went for naught when a major update broke them
>> 
>> --
>> 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
> 
> --
> 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: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

2023-05-21 Thread Seymour J Metz 
Well, I am a TSO bigot and grew up on CLIST, but once I had REXX available in 
TSO/E I bid CLIST a fond AMF. As is common in such cases, while REXX is in 
general far better than EXEC2 and CLIST, there are things that that it lacks.

ISPF versus XEDIT is harder.ISPF has significant advantages as an application 
framework, and ISPF/PDF EDIT has some nice features that XEDIT lacks, but XEDIT 
is on balance a much better editor.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Jack Zukt [jzuk...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2023 3:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

Hi,
That made for some interesting reading. I was quite proficient with REXX
and XEDIT before moving to MVS and ISPF. The first MVS I worked with did
not yet have REXX. It was helish doing the transition to ISPF and CLIST.
I still find VM help much better than MVS's. One of the first things that I
do when starting on a new MVS system is to put an edit macro named QQ on
the SYSPROC or SYSEXEC concatenation, so that I do not have to write
CANCEL. I really do not like having that on a pfkey. Too much grief because
of that.
I find that XEDIT environment capabilities permit us to tailor our working
environment far more than ISPF but, as always, I think that has more to do
with our path than with the products themselves.
As I said at the beginning, it really was an interesting reading.
Regards
Jack

On Sat, May 20, 2023, 00:08 Paul Gilmartin <
042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> On Fri, 19 May 2023 18:32:57 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
> >...
> >>I was trying to automate that in a macro on PF3.
> >
> >Yeah, that makes sense.
> >
> I learned a smattering of ISPF before any XEDIT; the latter in the
> era before PQUIT and QQIT intruded: the wrong solution.  But
> I immediately longed for ISPF's smart END which did a Save only
> when needed and left the timestamp unchanged otherwise.
>
> And I was irritated by XEDIT's behavior of *always* scrolling to
> center the target of a successful search, usually needlessly
>
> And it was disappointing that the XEDIT-based *LIST menus always
> ran in separate rings, never sharing with each other, PEEK, and
> XEDIT.  They should have used ADDRESS XEDIT instead of CMS.
>
> I wasted too much time scripting around such things, never
> modifying IBM code, only using undocumented interfaces.
> And it all went for naught when a major update broke them
>
> --
> 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

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

Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

2023-05-21 Thread Seymour J Metz 
() and () are just CLIST quoting mechanisms.you; REXX doesn't need 
them because of a fundamentally different syntax.

The "apostrophe catastrophe;" got worse since OS/VS2 R3.6.

What I miss about XEDIT is the combination of prefix macros and SET PENDING.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Paul Gilmartin [042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2023 9:36 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

On Sat, 20 May 2023 08:55:54 +0100, Jack Zukt wrote:
>... It was helish doing the transition to ISPF and CLIST.
>
I started with ISPF/CLIST, berore TSO REXX.  I never wrote an ISPF Edit
macro in CLIST.  I don't forgive CLIST for its apostrophe catastrophe;
seven consecutive apostrophes were not unusual.

CLIST and CMS EXEC have a "modal execution" facility which REXX
lacks, a sort of instream data akin to POSIX shell's "<... I still find VM help much better than MVS's.
>
It used to be even better.  When I first encountered CMS, HELP used the
conventional command name search, so
HELP alias-name

... would show help for the associated command.  inexplicably, that ability
was regressed in later releases.

> ... One of the first things that I
>do when starting on a new MVS system is to put an edit macro named QQ on
>the SYSPROC or SYSEXEC concatenation, so that I do not have to write
>CANCEL. I really do not like having that on a pfkey. Too much grief because
>of that.
>
+1.  I never create a shortcut for "de'ete".

>I find that XEDIT environment capabilities permit us to tailor our working
>environment far more than ISPF but, as always, I think that has more to do
>with our path than with the products themselves.
>
I have written an interactive application using XEDIT as a display driver.
Reserved lines relative to top, middle, and bottom of screen are precious.
Couldn't imagine that in ISPF.

If I disconnect a terminal during an XEDIT session and reconnect with a
different terminal geometry, XEDIT politely refreshes the screen with
the new geometry.  Why doesn't ISPF do that?

Can an XEDIT macro reside in a BFS file?

--
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: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

2023-05-20 Thread Paul Gilmartin 
On Sat, 20 May 2023 08:55:54 +0100, Jack Zukt wrote:
>... It was helish doing the transition to ISPF and CLIST.
>
I started with ISPF/CLIST, berore TSO REXX.  I never wrote an ISPF Edit
macro in CLIST.  I don't forgive CLIST for its apostrophe catastrophe;
seven consecutive apostrophes were not unusual.

CLIST and CMS EXEC have a "modal execution" facility which REXX
lacks, a sort of instream data akin to POSIX shell's "<... I still find VM help much better than MVS's.
>
It used to be even better.  When I first encountered CMS, HELP used the
conventional command name search, so
HELP alias-name

... would show help for the associated command.  inexplicably, that ability
was regressed in later releases.

> ... One of the first things that I
>do when starting on a new MVS system is to put an edit macro named QQ on
>the SYSPROC or SYSEXEC concatenation, so that I do not have to write
>CANCEL. I really do not like having that on a pfkey. Too much grief because
>of that.
>
+1.  I never create a shortcut for "de'ete".

>I find that XEDIT environment capabilities permit us to tailor our working
>environment far more than ISPF but, as always, I think that has more to do
>with our path than with the products themselves.
>
I have written an interactive application using XEDIT as a display driver.
Reserved lines relative to top, middle, and bottom of screen are precious.
Couldn't imagine that in ISPF.

If I disconnect a terminal during an XEDIT session and reconnect with a
different terminal geometry, XEDIT politely refreshes the screen with
the new geometry.  Why doesn't ISPF do that?

Can an XEDIT macro reside in a BFS file?

-- 
gil

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

Re: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

2023-05-20 Thread Jack Zukt 
Hi,
That made for some interesting reading. I was quite proficient with REXX
and XEDIT before moving to MVS and ISPF. The first MVS I worked with did
not yet have REXX. It was helish doing the transition to ISPF and CLIST.
I still find VM help much better than MVS's. One of the first things that I
do when starting on a new MVS system is to put an edit macro named QQ on
the SYSPROC or SYSEXEC concatenation, so that I do not have to write
CANCEL. I really do not like having that on a pfkey. Too much grief because
of that.
I find that XEDIT environment capabilities permit us to tailor our working
environment far more than ISPF but, as always, I think that has more to do
with our path than with the products themselves.
As I said at the beginning, it really was an interesting reading.
Regards
Jack

On Sat, May 20, 2023, 00:08 Paul Gilmartin <
042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> On Fri, 19 May 2023 18:32:57 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
> >...
> >>I was trying to automate that in a macro on PF3.
> >
> >Yeah, that makes sense.
> >
> I learned a smattering of ISPF before any XEDIT; the latter in the
> era before PQUIT and QQIT intruded: the wrong solution.  But
> I immediately longed for ISPF's smart END which did a Save only
> when needed and left the timestamp unchanged otherwise.
>
> And I was irritated by XEDIT's behavior of *always* scrolling to
> center the target of a successful search, usually needlessly
>
> And it was disappointing that the XEDIT-based *LIST menus always
> ran in separate rings, never sharing with each other, PEEK, and
> XEDIT.  They should have used ADDRESS XEDIT instead of CMS.
>
> I wasted too much time scripting around such things, never
> modifying IBM code, only using undocumented interfaces.
> And it all went for naught when a major update broke them
>
> --
> 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: XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

2023-05-19 Thread Charles Mills 
XEDUT (was: Typo ...)

Muphry's Law?

CM

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

XEDUT vs. ISPF (was: Typo ...)

2023-05-19 Thread Paul Gilmartin 
On Fri, 19 May 2023 18:32:57 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>...
>>I was trying to automate that in a macro on PF3.
>
>Yeah, that makes sense.
>
I learned a smattering of ISPF before any XEDIT; the latter in the
era before PQUIT and QQIT intruded: the wrong solution.  But
I immediately longed for ISPF's smart END which did a Save only
when needed and left the timestamp unchanged otherwise.

And I was irritated by XEDIT's behavior of *always* scrolling to
center the target of a successful search, usually needlessly

And it was disappointing that the XEDIT-based *LIST menus always
ran in separate rings, never sharing with each other, PEEK, and
XEDIT.  They should have used ADDRESS XEDIT instead of CMS.

I wasted too much time scripting around such things, never
modifying IBM code, only using undocumented interfaces.
And it all went for naught when a major update broke them

-- 
gil

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