On Nov 6, 2012, at 09:41, Edward Jaffe wrote: > On 11/6/2012 7:01 AM, Chuck Arney wrote: >> I'm sure there are a number of tool providers that would like to take >> advantage of smaller formats of ADATA. ... The ADATA format is published >> exactly for this reason. Why not the ASMLANGX format? > > I think this is a very sensible suggestion. How about making it a SHARE > requirement? > Well, yes, but does IBM feel that keeping the ASMLANGX format proprietary provides either:
o A competitive advantage (cf. PL/[SXAS...]) or o Flexibility for future revisions (cf. Binder data formats). -- gil
