On Jun 15, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Phil Smith III wrote: > > Gil wrote: >> No, you're thinking of ISPF. > > As infrequently as possible! > > <snippage of various ISPF gore> >> Item: CMS ISPF is worse. > > Well, yeah. Without even any details, we know this to be true! > > ... may have seemed like black magic to the ISPF developer (I assume they're > down to one part-timer, since it doesn't seem to actually improve over time). > But ISPF EDIT’s support of UTF-8 tagged zFS files is phenomenally good; severely limited only by the CCSID of the attached terminal. And they promptly fixed a bug I reported. Is XEDIT likewise?. I truly wished for full X3270 Unicode support on the z host side. Absurdly unrealistic again, I suppose.
>> It feels as if ISPF developers accepted Rexx unwittingly with an >> attitude approaching sabotage. > > It does. And that might be part of the reason that so many z/OS folks still > say "Oh, I don't use Rexx". > >> VM20779? Wayback Machine? GIYF? Not. > I was gobsmacked when our z/OS sysprog once told me he was writing an Assembler program for a one-off report. > Heh. Circa, um, 1984? 1985? It was a huge APAR that changed RESERVEd lines to > be per-screen instead of being global to XEDIT (among other things). In > retrospect, pretty clearly done to enable FILELIST et al. > And I wished they had done likewise for synonyms and PF keys; everything. — gil
