Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-23 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In , on 10/21/2012 at 04:21 PM, John Gilmore said: >bad manners PKB. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2 We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) --

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-22 Thread zMan
...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 wrote: > 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 fo

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-22 Thread Tom Marchant
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

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-21 Thread John Gilmore
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

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-21 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In , on 10/20/2012 at 09:19 AM, John Gilmore 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 than two level 88 declarations; they are closer to status variables in JOVIAL than they

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-21 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In <8836369831477103.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu>, on 10/19/2012 at 06:18 PM, Paul Gilmartin 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. -- Sh

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-21 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In , on 10/18/2012 at 10:27 PM, John Gilmore 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 him. I see nothing in Message-ID: <5318340582333965.wa.paulgboulderaim@listse

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-20 Thread John Gilmore
Dale Smith's post is admirable; but it is worth noting that his use of 88 levels is, as he himself concedes, suboptimal. Even, for example, for the alternatives 'START' and 'STOP' there are respectively 2^5 = 32 and 2^4 = 16 case variants to enumerate; and if now we admit 'TERGIVERSATE' as an alte

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-20 Thread Dale R. Smith
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:18:11 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >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

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-20 Thread John Gilmore
Paul Gilmartin wrote: IBM's adherence to standards is frequently moderated by an NIH attitude. IBM fails to understand that nowadays it is a tail (in a couple senses) that can no longer wag the dog. IBM adheres to the standards it says it adheres to rigorously. It would be enormously convenie

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-20 Thread Paul Gilmartin
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

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-20 Thread John Gilmore
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 t

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-20 Thread Mike Schwab
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

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-19 Thread Paul Gilmartin
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

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-19 Thread Kirk Talman
Cobol has EVALUATE and 88 levels that can accomplish this. IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 10/18/2012 04:21:07 PM: > From: Paul Gilmartin > C has the standard library function strcasecmp(). Does COBOL or PL/I provide > similar. - The informati

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread John Gilmore
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 co

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread Paul Gilmartin
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 f

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread John Gilmore
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 ide

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread Charles Mills
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 wrote: > Sam, > > I am cu

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread Charles Mills
tin 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. >

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread Paul Gilmartin
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

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread John Gilmore
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 you

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread Charles Mills
arles -Original 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 

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread John Gilmore
>> No, >> or no. >> > > I'm wondering what would happen if 'nO' was specified? ;-) > > >> >> :-( >> >> Charles >> >> -Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] O

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread Sam Siegel
---Original 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

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread Charles Mills
: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON) On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Scott Ford 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.

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread Quoc-Hoa TRAN
> > -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 PO

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread McKown, John
rance 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

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread Sam Siegel
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Scott Ford 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. This has proven to be true and works well. > >

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread Sam Siegel
--Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@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,

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread Charles Mills
Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@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 wrote: > I have a program written in LE C++ tha

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread Scott Ford
Sam, I am curious was your CEEPIPI and assembler driver to call and establish separate tasks? Scott ford www.identityforge.com Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand. - Chinese Proverb On Oct 18, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Sam Siegel wrote: > On Thu, Oc

Re: Nested enclaves and POSIX(ON)

2012-10-18 Thread Sam Siegel
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Charles Mills wrote: > I have a program written in LE C++ that is among other usages designed to > be > callable from a COBOL (or potentially other LE) program. I recently changed > the program to run POSIX(ON) because it is now sometimes calling the GSK > crypto