The thing I miss most about xedit was the simplicity of the macros. If I found myself doing something repetitive, such as a series of change commands, I could quickly create a macro by: Typing x x x and then in the new member x x I would enter those change commands just as I entered them in xedit, save and execute the macro. I did not have to figure out what clist library to put it in, lookup the doc on the isredit environment and see how the macro invocation of the command was different than the command line version. It was simply a record and playback type of operation, which I could then enhance if needed. ISPF edit macros can do a lot, but its another thing to learn and master instead of a natural extension of the environment.
Brad Taylor -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pinnacle Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:50 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Call for XEDIT freaks, submit ISPF requirements This is a call to all the XEDIT freaks that have been punking ISPF the last few days to put your money where your mouth is and submit some SHARE requirements for the ISPF editor. I get sick and tired of all the XEDIT freaks saying how XEDIT is way better than ISPF, but they never back it up with specifics. If XEDIT was so great, submit requirements for ISPF so we can get the features you want into the ISPF editor. Maybe XEDIT was better because it used " and "" for Repeat and RRepeat block, or maybe it was because copy and move targets used F for Following instead of A for After or P for Preceding instead of B for Before. Real productive. So quit B&M'ing about how ISPF sucks compared to XEDIT, and submit some requirements. If not, STF up. Regards, Tom Conley ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
