On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:27:42 -0500, Ed Gould wrote: > >> IBM designers fail to understand that doing something half right twice is >> simply not as good as doing it fully right once. Why didn't they invest >> the same resource to provide a single facility with both capabilities? >> >> Conway's law strikes again. > >Not necessarily... You have to look at the utilities manual and see >the exact sequence of the parm list that is to be supplied, if it >isn't then you are out of luck. BTW you are SOL if you try and get >the utilities to change as most (all?) of them are probably >functionally stabilized. *IF* attachmvs has its own then you probably >should ask for a conforming parm CP to be created. IIRC the utilities >are pretty standard in their requirements (nothing special) for parm >being passed. I am not defending IBM but the utilities have done it >this way for 20+ years and it would take an act of god to get IBM to >change them (WAD). >You might have better luck asking for a new set of utilities (god >knows they are needed) that conform to the attachmvs cp . In any case >I think you are out of luck. > Huh ???
I raised no issue with the programming interface to the utilities (at least not in this thread). It is exactly that of the LINK and ATTACH MACROs, and exactly that of ATTCHMVS. To change it would affect far more than the utilities. My complaint is that there's an interface from Rexx that supports the full capabilities of ATTACH's parameter list, and another that allows calling a program in the authorized state, but none that supports both. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
