In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 10/26/2006
at 07:31 AM, Peter Relson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I disagree.
There's a flaw in your analysis.
>If the program is refreshable, it means that it can be refreshed at
>any time. And that is exactly what can happen with LPA modules, by
>the way, if any of their real storage has been stolen (LPA modules,
>after IPL, are not "paged out"). They are not refreshed from their
>data set origin, but from the page packs where they were written
>during IPL.
>Therefore if a program modifies itself at "instant A", then at
>"instant A+1" is refreshed, then that modification is lost,
So far, so good.
>and the program will not behave as intended,
And that's where you go wrong.
>if you think "intended" would include "expecting a
>change that you made actually to happen".
And if you don't expect it then the program is still refreshable.
--
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
