I hate to disagree with you, Ed. I find it useful for SDSF. (We're not blessed with (E)JES here, sorry.) And I browse/view a lot of data sets as part of my work that have long LRECLs.
But I never use it for editing. :-) Later, Ray -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe Sent: Monday August 21 2006 02:37 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: >27x132? Hunkeler Peter (KIUB 34) wrote: > Problem with Contorl-M is that it seems to write either 80 column > lines or 132 column lines but nothing else. > If I use 160 columns, the start of the individual lines shift to the > right, since 132 chars from the first and another 28 chars from the > next line will be written on the first terminal line. Chars 29-132 > from the second line will then start at pos. 1 on the second terminal > line, followed by the first xx chars from line 3 and so on. > > It may be a configuration question here, I don't know. > Control-M abended when I first tried to work with more than 27 rows, > and I'm happy they corrected this. Didn't want to any further bother > my sysprog ;-) > I'm not sure why anyone wants to use 160 columns. AFAICT, the old 3290 supported this width simply because it was a convenient multiple of 80. A 51x132 or 62x132 screen is much easier to read than 51x160 or 62x160 and equally effective for on-line reading of dumps, reports, etc.. Of course, some people prefer 133 columns and I can't argue with their rationale. But, IMHO 160 is just silly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
