If I understand him correctly, what Chris Craddock has been trying to say is
that this problem is in general unsolvable. Perhaps an analogy will help.
Mathematicians have long known that no general method for finding the zeros
of polynomials of degree five (quintics) or greater can be devised.
This does not mean that no quintic can be solved. The very special case
(x-1)(x-2)(x-3)(x-4)(x-5) has the zeros 1,2,3,4,5. It does mean that
attempts to solve the general problem are misconceived.
If there is a need for this information in very special, carefully delimited
circumstances, it may be possible to obtain it; but in these circumstances
it would probably be better to alter your environment in a way that makes
this information available in advance by saving it somewhere.
I also conjecture that this is why IBM has been 'resistant' to supplying
this information. IBM has a long history of disliking point solutions that
are useful only in very special circumstances. Its resistance to supporting
the use of symbolics in JCL is not, for example, truculence. It is a
reflectkon of the fact that no really robust way to provide this support can
be devised.
John Gilmore
Ashland, MA 01721
USA
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
