My first attempt to post this rebuttal was rejected because it was too long. Proper appreciation of the nonsensical nature of Mr Thigpen's ridiculous post can be appreciated only with reference to most of the previous posts. I suggest reading the archive if you have any doubts over my correct intentions. It's probable that Mr Thigpen didn't bother.
http://listserv.uga.edu/archives/asm370.html - Mr Thigpen
Just ignore the tone of Chris' email.[1]
What is wrong with the "tone"? I addressed some evident problems in the original post which, if corrected, will lead to more efficient posting - and fewer misunderstandings - in future.
It's not personal.
What <expletive deleted> is this supposed to mean?
He is the exception to the rule.
Ditto!
Most people here are nice and are willing to provide answers to your questions ...
By which I assume I am supposed not to be nice and not provide answers - tosh! I do not aim to be nice, just effective and that includes providing answers.
... without the belittling normally found in Chris' replies.
What is *this* supposed to mean?
... but just does not know how to convey it in an non-aggressive manner.
More utter tosh!!!
Many of us have just learned to delete his emails before reading.[2]
Which raises the question of how you managed to know that I had already provided rather more useful a reply - IMNSHO - than you did. Why so? Yanick - at least you managed the courtesy of spelling his name correctly the second time - indicated he was in the process of learning and so, rather than having "magic box" subroutines to do everything for him, I expect he would more appreciate actually *understanding* what he was doing! Given the available hints from the original post, I believe the diagram I pointed out was just what he needed - together with the encouragement I provided to follow up over the not fully adequate description of the contents of the fields. Nevertheless, it is certainly good to know that there is a handy subroutine to assist with the actual slog of *implementing* the extraction of a name of names from the HOSTENT structure so I expect Yanick will be thankful also to you for having pointed that out. Or maybe not since, now I look through what EZACIC08 is all about - reviewing this post, I see it is really there to help out with COBOL rather than assembler (or PL/I) and so there is actually will gain no great benefit in bothering with EZACIC08! Yanick still hasn't come back with an answer to the question of the origin of the #SOCKET call. (Unfortunately - although it may be a deficiency in my grasp of the intricacies of the search process - Google drops the "#" on "#SOCKET" and so is useless.) If he had indicated that he was working with z/OS, I might - only might - have advised a general search of the z/OS manuals and that could well have revealed your EZACIC08 subroutine - and the existence of such subroutines in general. Despite the "CIC" in the name it is noticeable that the subroutines are documented in the general "z/OS Communications Server IP Sockets Application Programming Interface Guide and Reference" manual under Chapter 13, "CALL instruction application programming interface" rather than being considered specific to CICS - although it may be being "borrowed" by the non-CICS APIs.
He knows a lot, ...
I also know - having had some extensive experience in teaching - how to detect misunderstandings and correct them. I'm sorry if that comes across as "aggressive tone" to the "ears" of some delicate souls! A case in point is how I hope I explained Barry's quite wrong "Then #SOCKET does NOT in fact load R2.".[3] Read it though again and just try to understand that a misunderstanding here needed to be scotched with a surmise of how the misunderstanding might have arisen. "This is *not* intuitive." etc. in case you haven't taken the trouble actually to read everything I wrote which, on the basis of the evidence provided, seems quite likely. A further case in point is that, because Yanick was posting in a list where Barry's misunderstanding was possible and - with Murphy looking on - certain rather than a list where the topic under discussion was likely to be understood, it seemed sensible simply to point this out - didn't it? - let's actually have some honesty here ... Let's summarise where I have been helpful - as far as I can see and intended: 1. Encourage thinking about what list might be most appropriate and use that 2. Point out that almost certainly C conventions are being followed 3. Explain reasons for why Barry's answer - already discussed - was almost certainly wrong 4. Suggest providing references to whatever functions are used when they will not generally be known to the chosen list users 5. Identify a diagram by URL which looks very likely to solve the problem posed What the <expletive deleted> is wrong with that Mr Thigpen? If solid answers are too strong for you, please have the decency simply to keep your fingers off the keyboard! - [1] One of the "lot" of things I know is how in the proper use of the English language to compose the Saxon genitive when the singular word happens to end in the character "s" - and you don't! Try "Chris's" in future - although I'm not sure I should tempt such a "future" into being! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_genitive [2] Incidentally, if it's only the *tone* of my posts that somehow "gets your goat", isn't it an exercise in "foot-shooting" not to receive them when they might contain a needed answer? [3] In all probability "quite wrong" since I can't be sure without knowing precisely from where "#SOCKET" comes. I'm relying on it being closely comparable to the archetypal gethostbyname() call. - Chris Mason ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Thigpen" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 8:31 PM Subject: Re: How to display content of an address that point to a struct
Yanick, Just ignore the tone of Chris' email. It's not personal. He is the exception to the rule. Most people here are nice and are willing to provide answers to your questions without the belittling normally found in Chris' replies. He knows a lot, but just does not know how to convey it in an non-aggressive manner. Many of us have just learned to delete his emails before reading. Tony Thigpen
