@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
För John Gilmore
Skickat: den 21 oktober 2012 22:22
Till: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Ämne: Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)
I see Shmuel's posts only when they are part of a thread I have posted
to, but even that is now too much. I don't mind ad hominem criticisms
of me
In
cae1xxdeniobbjjea8bfkn_xpwazivrucqzpgxwronmim_js...@mail.gmail.com,
on 10/21/2012
at 04:21 PM, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com said:
bad manners
PKB.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2http://patriot.net/~shmuel
We don't care. We don't have to care,
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:21:52 -0400, John Gilmore wrote:
... I don't mind ad hominem criticisms
of me, even when they take the puerile forms his take; but the
technical content of his posts, once redemptive of his bad manners,
I'm certainly no expert on the subject of ad hominem, but isn't a
...and what SHOULD be the IBM-MAIN logo becomes relevant once again:
http://i.qkme.me/3r3ku1.jpg
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.comwrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:21:52 -0400, John Gilmore wrote:
... I don't mind ad hominem criticisms
of me, even when they
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 4:21 PM, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com wrote,
in part:
Shmuel is and should be
free to post here. Freedom of speech must certainly include the
freedom to express notions that seem to me to be devoid of merit.
Notions, yes; but *ad hominem* attacks, off-topic
In
cae1xxdesvwomzzgscbtwrat9grkif67fq1i_4v4m8u5yxrd...@mail.gmail.com,
on 10/18/2012
at 10:27 PM, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com said:
It is difficult for me to avoid the conclusion that Paul Gilmartin's
latest post in this thread was disingenuous.
That says more about you than it does about
In 8836369831477103.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
10/19/2012
at 06:18 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
I know very little COBOL. But I understand that the levels are for
record/control block definitions.
Except when they aren't. 77 and 88 are magic numbers in COBOL.
In
CAE1XxDEoPLRZNdi_yt1E32k8s29YBH8oucHPhu2Vw9P0YV=2...@mail.gmail.com,
on 10/20/2012
at 09:19 AM, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com said:
COBOL's 88-level machinery is an artefact of lacunæ elsewhere. In
particular, boolean variables,
A variable definition in COBOL can be followed by more
I see Shmuel's posts only when they are part of a thread I have posted
to, but even that is now too much. I don't mind ad hominem criticisms
of me, even when they take the puerile forms his take; but the
technical content of his posts, once redemptive of his bad manners,
has now deteriorated. It
Most levels are for breaking an area of memory into various fields.
Not an 88 level.
DATA DIVISION.
...
10 FIELD-NAME PIC X(5).
88 FIELD-NAME-TRUE VALUE 'TRUE ;.
88 FIELD-NAME-FALSE VALUE 'FALSE'.
...
PROCEDURE DIVISION
...
IF FIELD-NAME-TRUE THEN
is equivalent to
IF FIELD-NAME = 'TRUE
COBOL's 88-level machinery is an artefact of lacunæ elsewhere. In
particular, boolean variables, while they have made their way into the
COBOL standard, have not yet made it into IBM COBOL implementations.
An eminent jesuit cardinal, confronted with the knuckle of one saint
and a portion of the
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 09:19:24 -0400, John Gilmore wrote:
COBOL's 88-level machinery is an artefact of lacunæ elsewhere. In
particular, boolean variables, while they have made their way into the
COBOL standard, have not yet made it into IBM COBOL implementations.
IBM's adherence to standards is
Cobol has EVALUATE and 88 levels that can accomplish this.
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU wrote on
10/18/2012 04:21:07 PM:
From: Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com
C has the standard library function strcasecmp(). Does COBOL or PL/I
provide
similar.
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:33:20 -0400, Kirk Talman wrote:
Cobol has EVALUATE and 88 levels that can accomplish this.
I know very little COBOL. But I understand that the levels are for
record/control block definitions. How does this (help to) provide the
function of strcasecmp()? (Perhaps a
(OFF).
Programmer response: Specify the POSIX(ON)
run-time option for only the first enclave. Make sure all
nested enclaves specify POSIX(OFF).
System action: The application will be terminated.
Is it truly the case that a POSIX(ON) main program can't be invoked from
another LE program? That seems
(ON),
and that enclave must be the first enclave. All nested
enclaves must be running with POSIX(OFF).
Programmer response: Specify the POSIX(ON)
run-time option for only the first enclave. Make sure all
nested enclaves specify POSIX(OFF).
System action: The application will be terminated.
Is it truly
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Sam Siegel
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 7:50 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote:
I have a program written in LE C++ that is among other usages designed
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 7:50 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote:
I have a program written in LE C++ that is among other usages designed
to be callable from a COBOL
be running with POSIX(OFF).
Programmer response: Specify the POSIX(ON)
run-time option for only the first enclave. Make sure all
nested enclaves specify POSIX(OFF).
System action: The application will be terminated.
Is it truly the case that a POSIX(ON) main program can't be invoked from
Company.SM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Sam Siegel
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Charles Mills
]
On Behalf Of Sam Siegel
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org
wrote:
the C/C++ needed to be callable from non-POSIX COBOL.
It's worse
: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
Sam,
I am curious was your CEEPIPI and assembler driver to call and establish
separate tasks?
Yes - From my reading of the DOC, each TCB can have
a separate and independent LE ENCLAVE
Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Sam Siegel
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Sam,
I am curious was your CEEPIPI
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Sam Siegel
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com
wrote
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of John Gilmore
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:05 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)
I disagree. If 'NO', 'No', and 'no' are acceptable, 'nO' should be too
The manual writer was being silly. The point he or she should have
made was that the value was not case-sensitive. For 'no', there are
only 2^2 = 4 possible case variants; but for 'yes' there are 2^3 = 8;
and for 'maybe' there are 2^5 = 32. Enumeration breaks down very
quickly.
I doubt that
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:14:30 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
You're right: it would arguably be harder to write code that accepted NO,
No, and no but not nO.
Not necessarily; the programmer could easily have coded 3 switch/case/SELECT
labels for the branches considered plausible. Easier to code
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 1:21 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:14:30 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
You're right: it would arguably be harder to write code that accepted
NO, No, and no but not nO.
Not necessarily
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Sam Siegel
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
Sam
My point was of course that case independence makes all of 'no', 'nO',
'No', 'NO' interchangeable in use. In PL/I one writes, say,
arg = lower(argument) ;
match = (arg = 'no') ;
or, indifferently,
arg = upper(argument) ;
match = (arg = 'NO') ;
The same thing can be done in C, using all but
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:03:46 -0400, John Gilmore wrote:
arg = upper(argument) ;
match = (arg = 'NO') ;
The same thing can be done in C, using all but identical assignment
statements (although the variable declarations for them must be
But why bother when you can use the standard library
It is difficult for me to avoid the conclusion that Paul Gilmartin's
latest post in this thread was disingenuous. He is not, moreover, the
only or, certainly, the most egregious offender. There is much
anecdotal evidence that secondary-school debating-society posts all
but empty of substantive
32 matches
Mail list logo
