In a recent note, "Thompson, Steve (SCI TW)" said: > Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:37:18 -0400 > > How about AIF (D'S99RBXLN).DONE_ALREADY inside the IBM supplied macro? > In fact, Ed might need to do something of the sort inside his code in order to ease the transition to 1.8. Perhaps an SPLEVEL check.
But I wonder why he placed his private definition of S99RBXLN in each of several source files rather than in a macro. Hmmm. Ed used S99RBXLN rather than the more obvious S99RBLEN to minimize the likelihood of collision with a possible IBM update. And IBM S99RBXLN rather than the more obvious S99RBLEN to minimize the likelihood of collision with possible private customer circumventions. Poker strategy? Rock-Scissors-Paper? Prisoner's Dilemma? -- 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
