I don't think it's a question of what to reply, but rather if you feel the product is poorly documented or supported, then it seems the place to be having this conversation is with IBM. I personally can't see any reason for coding DISP=MOD or DISP=NEW when maintaining PDS members. As for, customers can do what they want ... perhaps so, but not if they expect support. I had one programmer code DISP=(OLD,DELETE) to try and remove a member from a LNKLST library, so I don't accept that argument (fortunately security prevented him from deleting the entire library). If they use the DISP improperly, then you will see this kind of coding.
My point about poor coding practice, is that the DISP is used to reflect the state of an entire data set and not individual members. So while DISP=NEW and DISP=MOD are supported, there's no practical reason for their use and it creates the erroneous view that DISP processing operates against members. While it's not my place to tell you what to do, or how your organization runs, I'm concerned that you've mentioned that you have a "bug", but haven't mentioned what IBM's response is to this (perhaps you mentioned it already and I simply missed it)? I don't find that the MVS documentation is "scattered" as much as it is redundant in numerous placed. I don't recall seeing conflicting or contradictory documentation, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by that statement. From what I posted, it was found exactly where it should be, so I'm not sure what you might be referring to. If you don't mind ... what is the "bug" you're experiencing? Is it behaving in some unusual way or simply failing? Adam ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
