In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/23/2006
at 02:13 PM, john gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>and this is exactly right. In those days the official LE definition
>of a reentrant module envisaged that it could perhaps modify itself
>(typically once and typically early) iff it held "a global lock"
>while doing so, which was/is more restrictive than "with
>serialization".
In those days the was no global lock. The only available forms of
serialization were ENQ, SSM and TS. The official definition require
that you get correct results when multiple invocations ran in
parallel; it was neither necessary nor sufficient that it be
refreshable.
>A refreshable module, which could not do so, was thus reentrant;
No.
>Everyone appears to have his own notion of what reentrant means,
But the IBM OS/360 documentation from the 1960s is still available.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
