, June 07, 2017 2:03 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx
Well now I am thoroughly confused. I am looking at Init & Tuning and those do
not appear to be valid PROGxx statements. What am I missing? I see LNKLST ADD
in I&T but not SETPROG LNKLST,ADD -- that
age-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jousma, David
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 10:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx
That is exactly one of the uses!
EDIT SYS1.PARMLIB(PR
AIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 1:29 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx
Easy for you and me to redesign MVS retroactively but yes, your point is
well-taken. It would seem that for the same effort as Set PROG= IBM could h
alf
Of Ed Jaffe
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 6:03 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx
On 5/16/2017 5:46 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
>> only dumb developers
> I like you too, Tom. I thought we were friends.
Perhaps he was referring to the IBM developers that ma
On 5/16/2017 5:46 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
only dumb developers
I like you too, Tom. I thought we were friends.
Perhaps he was referring to the IBM developers that made MVS SET
commands sometimes work additively and sometimes as full replacement. LOL
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software Inte
Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM wrote:
>Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
>> >This is the world's dumbest question if you're a sysprog but I'm a
>> >developer with nearly zero sysprog experience.
>> This is not a dumb question. Only wise people ask questions! ;-)
>No, wise people are here to answer qu
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht
> Sent: 16 May, 2017 15:15
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx
>
> Charles Mills wrote:
>
>
Charles Mills wrote:
>This is the world's dumbest question if you're a sysprog but I'm a developer
>with nearly zero sysprog experience.
This is not a dumb question. Only wise people ask questions! ;-)
>Whenever in the past that I have taken a quick look at SET PROG=(xx,yy) I
>assumed that PR
IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Tom Conley
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 5:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx
On 5/15/2017 7:25 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
> This is the world's dumbest question if you're a sysp
On 5/15/2017 7:25 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
This is the world's dumbest question if you're a sysprog but I'm a developer
with nearly zero sysprog experience.
Whenever in the past that I have taken a quick look at SET PROG=(xx,yy) I
assumed that PROGxx + PROGyy in the parmlib concatenation *totall
E3 88 81 95 92 40 A8 96 A4 5A
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of John McKown
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 4:33 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Effect of SET PROG=xx
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:26 PM
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
> This is the world's dumbest question if you're a sysprog but I'm a
> developer
> with nearly zero sysprog experience.
>
> Whenever in the past that I have taken a quick look at SET PROG=(xx,yy) I
> assumed that PROGxx + PROGyy in the parmlib
This is the world's dumbest question if you're a sysprog but I'm a developer
with nearly zero sysprog experience.
Whenever in the past that I have taken a quick look at SET PROG=(xx,yy) I
assumed that PROGxx + PROGyy in the parmlib concatenation *totally replaced*
the contents of whatever PROGaa a
13 matches
Mail list logo
