On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 05:58:45 +0000, Dave Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... >As you know, there is already a language out there called "CLIST". To >describe REXX as a "REXX CLIST" is (IMO) at the very least redundant, and at >worst, confusing. It's more than enough to just say "REXX". After all, a >CLIST is just a CLIST, and I've never heard anyone describe it as a "CLIST >clist". >... Both TSO and NetView allow clists and execs to coexist in their CLIST libraries. Refering to the content of the library as "clists" seems reasonable to me. But more to the point: it doesn't matter. Once we're talking 3270 datastream it doesn't much matter what created it. >... >(i.e. D4C32XX3). I tried it, and the invisible field started working. ... >So to me, the logmode doesn't appear to >be "irrelevant", whether in principle or otherwise. >... The logmode is absolutely irrelevant in theory. The non-display attribute has existed since before logmodes. It sounds like either the 3270 emulator involved has incorrectly incorrectly tied something to logmode processing, or the program building the datastream has implemented the non-display as some extended attribute (if such an an extended attribute exists) rather than using a simple field attribute. Chris's statement is correct. Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
