John Perhaps, even with your excellent command of words, "perhaps" means different things to different people. To me it betokens uncertainty and which is surely incompatible with a major feature of an API which has offered the "no interruptions" feature since its inception nearly 40 years ago.
Thus, if "no interruptions" is *not* a general feature of "asynchronous exits", what VTAM has been doing for these nigh-on 40 years is definitely - not "perhaps" - special. Indeed, a "rule" is presented here and VTAM identifies one circumstance where the "rule" does not apply. Of course, it needs careful reasoning but this does indicate that VTAM logic is imposing the "rule" rather than the operating system logic supporting "asynchronous exits". Incidentally, perhaps not everyone will understand the "Moind moi haarp!" allusion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THKRsrv1GYY Chris Mason ----- Original Message ----- From: "john gilmore" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 3:20 PM Subject: asynchronous exits, VTAM and non-VTAM Peter Relson's point was that, in general, one asynchronous exit may interrupt another. This is certainly correct, even platitudinous; his post was made necessary by the use of too general language in earlier ones. That VTAM elects to permit such interruptions only in one special case is also clear. There is thus little scope here for a donnybrook about nothing. John Gilmore Ashland, MA 01721-1817 USA =
