On 10 December 2010 07:47, Peter Relson <[email protected]> wrote: > The fact that you can see information in the prolog of a macro has no > bearing on whether it is a documented progarmming interface. Officially, > only the books are the arbiter of programming interfaces. > > Further, the prolog shows that this Use2Gto32G is not a programming > interface: > > *01* EXTERNAL CLASSIFICATION: > * > *02* GUPI: BASE > * > *02* NONE: FIELDS > * DOAUTHCHECKS > * USE2GTO32G > * > *01* END OF EXTERNAL CLASSIFICATION:
So the macro prolog has no bearing on the PI status, but you are showing us some prolog text to demonstrate that a feature is not PI...? Should I take it from this that a prospective user of any service needs to check both the macro and the book and use the most restrictive interpretation? And while I'm here - what's the difference between "NONE" and "NOTPI"? I would've thought "NONE" would mean that no one has pronounced upon it, and that "NOTPI" would be the definitive statement of non support. > I readily grant that the books are too often wrong. But that does not > lessen their official-ness. Help us to get them right. RCFs concerning typos or minor formatting issues often produce corrections in the next release. Those concerning substantive issues that would require the tech writer to consult with development have rarely done so, in my experience. I have had pleasant conversations with concerned tech writers over the years, but as for actual changed publications... Tony H.
