In a recent note, Kurt Quackenbush said: > Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:33:42 -0400 > > Ah, now the confusion becomes clear... the developer was in fact > CORRECT. The SYSLIB operand on the ++SRC defines the target library for > the source... it does NOT define the target library for a load module. > I stand corrected. Developer has acknowledged she had a superfluous IEBCOPY step in JCLIN. The problem vanished when she removed that and SYSLIB() concurrently. I can't reproduce the problem, but I haven't tried anything as outrageous as "COPY I=DISTMOD,O=SYSLIB", because she knows better than that.
My apologies to: o Kurt Q. for the distraction. o Shmuel for eliciting a defense which was hypothetically valid only given my base misunderstanding. o John G. for provoking a tirade against imprecision which was correct but collateral. Alas, if the verbiage necessary to remove such overloadings in all instances were added, the RM would become prohibitively bulky. Thanks, gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
