In <3240638450612647.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu>, on
09/05/2012
at 06:09 PM, Paul Gilmartin said:
>Is this IRXEXCOM, IIRC?
>From the GI:
3.1.3.2 TSO/E REXX programming services
IRXEXCOM - Variable Access
The IRXEXCOM variable access routine lets unauthorized
this IRXEXCOM
>
> Sounds right.
>
> Charles
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 4:10 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: R
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 16:18:07 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>> ADDRESS LINKPGM ... allow the called program to modify the Rexx variables
>> passed as arguments
>
>Could be -- but you still get the *string data*, right, not the address of
>whatever internal control block represents a variable inside
ember 05, 2012 4:10 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Strings (hijacked from: The IBM zEnterprise EC12 announcment)
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 15:41:15 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>> It would be easy enough to code one that returns as a numeric string the
>> address of one of its a
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 15:41:15 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>> It would be easy enough to code one that returns as a numeric string the
>> address of one of its arguments.
>
>My recollection is that when calling assembler from Rexx you get the address
>of a copy of the string data, not the address o
s not
more widely accepted, outside of the mainframe world.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Strings (hijacked fro
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 18:02:51 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote:
>On 5 September 2012 15:51, Charles Mills wrote:
>> Rexx is so "magical" there is no real reason it could not support
>> Substr(a,3,1) = 'x' and actually be doing a = Substr(a,1,2) || 'x' ||
>> Substr(a,4) under the covers. Even, for that mat
On 5 September 2012 15:51, Charles Mills wrote:
> Rexx is so "magical" there is no real reason it could not support
> Substr(a,3,1) = 'x' and actually be doing a = Substr(a,1,2) || 'x' ||
> Substr(a,4) under the covers. Even, for that matter, Substr(a,3,1) = 'xyz'
> or Substr(a,3,3) = 'x'
Right -
gt; Behalf Of Tony Harminc
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:20 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Strings (hijacked from: The IBM zEnterprise EC12 announcment)
>
> On 5 September 2012 13:26, Scott Ford wrote:
>
>> I find it interesting that in REXX , i
es
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:20 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Strings (hijacked from: The IBM zEnterprise EC12 announcment)
On 5 September 2012 13:26, S
On 5 September 2012 13:26, Scott Ford wrote:
> I find it interesting that in REXX , its really easy to handle strings ..in
> fact to me pretty simple.
> Maybe because I very very familar with Rexx since it came out. Why cant C and
> C++ be this way without going thru all the gyrations.
In REXX
at I'm not
aware of.
Kind regards
Bernd
Am 05.09.2012 17:10, schrieb Anne & Lynn Wheeler:
> paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
>> You, Lynn, and John G. are correct to distrust null-terminated strings.
> re:
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#67 Strings (hij
N@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Bernd Oppolzer
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 8:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Strings (hijacked from: The IBM zEnterprise EC12 announcment)
Good point.
Many of you out there seem to dislike C for such reasons like that discussed
here: you have to
nd Health Insurance Company.SM
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Bernd Oppolzer
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 10:47 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Strings (hijacked from: The IBM
17:10, schrieb Anne & Lynn Wheeler:
paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
You, Lynn, and John G. are correct to distrust null-terminated strings.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#67 Strings (hijacked from: The IBM
zEnterprise EC12 announcment)
in lots of discussions about
paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
> You, Lynn, and John G. are correct to distrust null-terminated strings.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#67 Strings (hijacked from: The IBM
zEnterprise EC12 announcment)
in lots of discussions about C language string&buffer conv
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> .
>
> You, Lynn, and John G. are correct to distrust null-terminated strings.
>
> But if you write in C, you are pretty much stuck with them since the
library uses them.
Call it distrust if you want, but they work fine with careful coding
In
,
on 09/04/2012
at 12:10 PM, Kirk Wolf said:
>But other metal-level language implementations are not care free -
>consider length-prefixed strings - the programmer must still check
>lengths before moving data.
Not if STRINGRANGE is enabled.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and J
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:32:12 -0500, Kirk Wolf wrote:
>
>(BTW - strncpy() also zeros bytes after the terminator, if necessary)
>
>For more information, see: http://www.courtesan.com/todd/papers/strlcpy.html
>under "Common Misconceptions"
>
There's no discernible date of publication of that paper save
---
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Scott Ford
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 12:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Strings (hijacked from: The IBM zEnterprise EC12 announcment)
I have had to move a string type field like a paramet
:>: From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
:>: Behalf Of Scott Ford
:>: Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 12:04 PM
:>: To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
:>: Subject: Re: Strings (hijacked from: The IBM zEnterprise EC12
:>: announcment)
:>:
:>: I have h
e '\0'. The
> only
> > restriction is that this is not a string.
> >
> > :>: -Original Message-
> > :>: From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On
> > :>: Behalf Of John Gilmore
> > :>: Sent:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Scott Ford wrote:
> I have had to move a string type field like a parameter to a field like
> this,
>
> Jobn char[40];
>
> memset(Jobn,'0',sizeof(Jobn));
> strcpy(Jobn,x);
>
> Otherwise strcmp fails, where x is the parameter string
>
>
>
"fails" how?
the
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> :>: Behalf Of John Gilmore
> :>: Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 9:02 AM
> :>: To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> :>: Subject: Re: Strings (hijacked from: The IBM zEnterprise EC12
> :>: announcment)
> :>:
> :>: If you c
No argument - base C "strings" (null terminated char[]) are a PITA from C
programmers POV, since you must ever vigilant. Good programming practices
and standards are key. Besides the obvious use of strncpy(), strncat(),
etc, BSD (considered by most as the most secure *nix OS) encourages
strlcpy
:>: Behalf Of John Gilmore
:>: Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 9:02 AM
:>: To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
:>: Subject: Re: Strings (hijacked from: The IBM zEnterprise EC12
:>: announcment)
:>:
:>: If you construct an array by initializing it element by element you
:>: get an array,
paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
> And here, I find myself in rare agreement with John G.'s view
> (if I understand correctly). A char[] containing no \0 is a perfectly
> valid array of char. It is not a string, by C's convention, and there
> is no requirement that a char[] represent
If you construct an array by initializing it element by element you
get an array, one that is not nul-delimited or 'of conceptually
unlimited length', whatever that may mean.
If you construct a string by initializing a character array with a
string, you get a nul-delimited string implemented under
f Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:48 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Strings (hijacked from: The IBM zEnterprise EC12 announcment)
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:57:17 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Just because you *can* create a malformed string with no delimiter does not
>
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:57:17 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Just because you *can* create a malformed string with no delimiter does not
>mean that my statement about proper C behavior is untrue.
>
And here, I find myself in rare agreement with John G.'s view
(if I understand correctly). A char[] co
30 matches
Mail list logo
