>Your "astonishment" only shows your own limitations. Maybe true.
The reason it is not reasonable and useful is for exactly the reason that Roland ran into trouble: we might choose to "roll back" a definition at any point for any reason that we feel 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. Your guess is wrong. >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. Did anyone ever ask for this sort of thing before you did via a formal mechanism? You're certainly far less likely to get what you want if you don't ask for it (not that asking for it will necessarily get it for you) >Now if only you would consider some of the other design problems with >SYSSTATE which I described to you last November and which you ignored >(specifically, my suggestion about implementing a "SYSSTATE >OSREL=RUNTIMECHECK" capability). This would be prohibitively expensive and will clearly never happen. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
