Paul, I can only guess here but it's been awhile since I have talked with anyone about this, but if my memory serves that IBM thought about ease of understanding and decided on how it's implemented now. IOW they did the research and decided it. Good luck trying to get them to change it.
Ed Sent from my iPad On Jul 27, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:16:10 +0200, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM wrote: >>> >>> I've increasingly started to specify my sizes in bytes. >> >> That's exactly where IBM is trying to get you for the last 25 years... >> Apparently one more lost sheep converted. >> > I'd be more enthusiastic if only they'd simplify it for the user and let > me specify the size of an extent in a single number and not screw > around with funky scaling factors. I recognize that there is likely > a historical basis because of limited sizes of fields in some control > blocks. But allocation should perform the calculation and not > inflict it on the user. If I want 10 GB, I should be able to code > "SIZE=10000000000" and be done with it. > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
