>> For that to be an optimum solution, the panels must have been >>heavy on procedure and light on display.
Exactly. Bizarre or not, panels are programs as well as being a means of display/data entry. Non-display panels can be quite useful as a sort of subroutine in dialog applications (there is after all an option to invoke a panel without displaying it) and also in batch usage, especially if they are part of an existing ISPF application. Lateral thinking or something maybe. Optimal? Who knows? Practical? Sometimes. But I'm sure one can bizarrely misuse the ability as well. Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:08:32 -0500 From: Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> Subject: Re: ISPF Panel and LPAR name On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:43:58 -0400, Dave Salt wrote: >> From: ponce...@bcs.org.uk >> Anyone who writes Clist/REXX that invokes panels in batch doesn't have a >> clue about what he/she/it is doing. > > ... I customized the panels to recognize a parameter that would only be > passed in batch. When the panel was invoked with the parameter it filled in > various fields automatically and simulated ENTER being pressed, which invoked > the next panel (and so on). Some of these processes went quite a few panels > deep and the whole thing worked flawlessly. > I'll stand corrected from my previous ply. That's bizarre! Byzantine. For that to be an optimum solution, the panels must have been heavy on procedure and light on display. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
