> The resource spent on adding emphasis to the description of a deficiency would better have been used to repair it.
LOL. Ain't it the truth! Every software team should have that on a plaque on the wall. I don't always do it, but I am happiest when I do: write the user documentation BEFORE you write the product. Then when you find yourself devoting three tedious paragraphs to explaining how something works, you have a chance to say to yourself "Hmm. Maybe it shouldn't work that way." Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert A. Rosenberg Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 1:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Error apply ZAP At 11:53 -0600 on 01/09/2012, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Re: Error apply ZAP: >On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:54:45 -0500, Veilleux, Jon L wrote: > >>I think that you answered your own question. >> >>"aside from not recovering the >>victim(s) of a ++DELETE command?" >> >>I could never understand why that is the case. RESTORE should restore >>everything. >> >Yup. There's another one that's about as bad. When link edit JCLIN >adds an INCLUDE statement, the load module is not necessarily relinked >to add the MOD element mentioned. I know; this behavior is documented >fully, even tediously. That doesn't alter the fact that the design is >wrong. The resource spent on adding emphasis to the description of a >deficiency would better have been used to repair it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
