Shmuel Comments are embedded.
Chris Mason On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:57:47 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) <shmuel+ibm- [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/04/2006 > at 10:03 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >>I think here you are saying "No" because the dimensions can only be >>"set" using the BIND and cannot be "configured" using the device >>"configuration" possibilities. > >The sizes picked up by a BIND with the query bit are determined by the >model number that you configured the 3180 to. For the basic model >numbers a BIND without the query bit must be an exact match and for >the extended model numbers the BIND can specify anything within the >physical device limits. > Again thanks for the information on 3180/3179 configuration. >>You lost me here. > >Edward Jaffe wanted dynamic screen size changes, initiated by the user >at the terminal and automatically recognized by the host application. >That's not something in the datastream definition and not something >provided by InfoWindow et al. > I think you are reading too much into Edward Jaffe's enhancement. It's something that's been hinted at in this thread - or a tangent - that the dimensions could be altered "within a session" and the change could be detected. I don't believe that's any part of Edward Jaffe's suggestions. His idea is simply to be able to have a default set of dimensions other than 24 rows and 80 columns set "before the session starts" and to have the application know it needs to detect those dimensions, having been authorised to "query", of course. >>That's a good point about the 12-bit addressing. I expect this is in >>reference to having default presentation space dimensions where the >>number of rows is set to more that 24 but the application knows only >>to use 24 - and uses 12-bit addressing. > >Not quite; it's in reference to applications that can handle more than >24 rows but can't handle a display buffer larger than 4 KiB, e.g., the >application will work with 51x80 but fail with 52x80, or the >application will work with 31x132 but fail with 32x127. > The true significance of 12-bit addressing is something I clearly know about since I have used it to explain the 51 rows and 80 columns limit. Thanks for another example. >>Ok, this is my fault, clearly I have to be ultraprecise in my >>referencing or the faintest chance to misunderstand will be taken. > >Red herrings! Get your red herrings while they're fresh. I never >suggested any such thing. It would, however, be nice if you didn't >make overly broad generalizations and if you didn't expect people to >read your mind when you quote a large body of text but are only >responding to one part. > This is your text on which I was commenting: <quote> That's true for 3271/3275/3276/3278/3279 devices, but for more recent devices the number of rows for primary need not be 24. In particular, the 3180 and and the 3192 work just fine with a primary size of 43x80. </quote> This is my text that you are now complaining was inadequately indicating to what I was referring: <quote> I believe you are talking about dimensions you set using the X'7F' code in the penultimate byte of the PSERVIC operand. </quote> This refers to my post of Tues, Aug 29 2006 4:48 am in answer to your post of Tuesday, 22 August, 2006 3:13 PM - using Google Groups. My comment was the 2 last paragraphs in my post clearly responding to the last paragraph in your post, your only other comment having been dealt with. I believe you are protesting over my having provided inadequate indication of reference because you were led into making an easily avoidable misunderstanding, that is, you assumed ignorance rather too easily. Now I see why I thought your subsequent comments were so odd. >>The sentence upon which I was commenting > >Was imbedded in a large body of text, with no indication that you >comment referred to that sentence at all, much less that it refereed >only to that sentence. If your software makes it difficult to use a >correct quoting style, you could at least word your comment in such a >way as to indicate context. > While we're talking of referencing technique, I'm sure that if you quoted more of the context of your comments, others may have a better chance of detecting any misunderstandings even if you cannot - but I guess there's a "Catch 22" in there somewhere. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
