In a recent note, David Cole said: > Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 06:03:32 -0400 > > At 8/26/2006 04:04 PM, PRelson wrote: > >I can only say "I am astonished" that someone would code based on > >the presence of a field name. We have every right to define fields > >in any level of macros that are convenient. > > Peter, > > Your "astonishment" only shows your own limitations. Just because you > did not think of a technique, does not mean that it's not both > reasonable and useful. > > I'm guessing that your astonishment arises because you do not > distribute source code across multiple OS releases, and so you are > not all that familiar with (or sympathetic to) the issues that arise. > > Roland's technique is very reasonable considering that for many > decades you did not provide any of us with an alternative. Thank you > for finally providing SYSSTATE_OSREL. > I glanced at the doc for this. It appears less useful than it might be in that SYSSTATE TEST does not set values for &SYSOSREL and &SYSOSREL_NAME.
-- 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
