On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:09:42 -0600, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >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? > S99RBLN (not LEN) is already provided for the length of S99RB. This new symbol is for the length of S99RBX, so it obviously more obvious <g> to include the "X" in the symbol for the length as well. As far as Ed's unfortunate collision, I'm pretty sure I would have chosen the exact same name - but I don't write "software". Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.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
