On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:31:09 +0100, CM Poncelet wrote: >I did explain that ISREDIT follows Clist rules when processing &'s, in >my earlier posting, methinks <grin>: > ... >TSO Clist edit macros have been around long before REXX appeared (around >1989-90) and ISREDIT was meant to be called in Clist, not REXX.. So REXX >has to follow the Clist rules when calling ISREDIT - e.g. to process >data containing &'s. > Does this mean that if the same command string is issued to ISREDIT from CLIST and from Rexx the effect will be identical, or not? I scarcely know CLIST. Is it even meaningful to discuss the command string issued from CLIST to ISREDIT?
How old is the CALL interface from programming languages? Same question as earlier: Do identical command strings issued to ISREDIT from CLIST and CALL have identical effect? How are ampersands treated in commands passed via CALL? As you imply Rexx is not CLIST. Might it not have been better if the Rexx interface had been specified as CALL-like rather than CLIST-like? >There is nothing wrong with ISPF itself. > That's a sweeping statement. Are you sure? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
