In <4e35f6d3.9090...@bcs.org.uk>, on 08/01/2011
at 01:44 AM, CM Poncelet <ponce...@bcs.org.uk> said:
>The 'acid test' is whether the same program DCB (ignoring the MACRF=
>and EODAD=) can be used *both* for OUTPUT and for INPUT (with a
>change in MACFR= and adding EODAD= when opening for INPUT), when the
>dataset's physical DCB attributes on DASD are *different* from those
>specified in the program.
No. The acid test is whether the system behaves in accordance with the
published documentation. It does.
>when the dataset's physical DCB attributes on DASD
There is no such thing.
>If this DCB is opened for OUTPUT (MACRF=PM|L), then the program's
>DCB attributes override those on DASD - and the program's DCB
>attributes then also become those stored on DASD, all without
>causing I/O errors.
No. An incorrect BLKSIZE on output could also cause an I/O error, back
when there where DASD with tracks smaller than 32 KiB.
>If the same DCB is opened for INPUT (MACRF=GM|L,EODAD=<etc.>), then
>the program's DCB attributes do *not* override those on DASD
Were that true then there wouldn't be an I/O error.
>and, as the program's DCB attributes are inconsistent
They wouldn't be inconsistent if they didn't override.
<more nonsense clipped>
>high-falluting semantics
Like the NCO's in Basic Training who argued "high-falluting semantics"
for no better reason than a prejudice against our killing each other
with "unloaded" rifles. The word "semantics" doesn't mean what you
believe it means.
In <4e35f8cb.7090...@bcs.org.uk>, on 08/01/2011
at 01:52 AM, CM Poncelet <ponce...@bcs.org.uk> said:
>We are arguing semantics ...
Indeed, but "semantics" doesn't mean what you believe. Essentially all
arguments are about semantics.
In <4e360d24.4010...@bcs.org.uk>, on 08/01/2011
at 03:19 AM, CM Poncelet <ponce...@bcs.org.uk> said:
>No, what I am saying is correct.
ROTF,LMAO!
>What matters is not whether a program can open a DCB for input
>(trivial), but whether that DCB then actually works.
No, what matters is whether the results are in accordance with the
published documentation or in accordance with your beliefs.
>argumentum ad hominem?
No. Ridicule of a an inference with false premises.
In <4e3618ba.8050...@bcs.org.uk>, on 08/01/2011
at 04:08 AM, CM Poncelet <ponce...@bcs.org.uk> said:
>when I can think for myself.
Obviously not. Otherwise you wouldn't keep insisting that you don't
need to read the manuals.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
