> +1 (What the H*** is gained by uppercasing a CART where the underlying > service supports any 64-bit value?
Inertia? Blind adherence to poorly understood specifications. There are lots of pathlogies in large organizations that could explain it. Report it, and if it comes back BAD then submit an RFE. There is nothing in TSO that either requires the misbehavior or that requires the documentation of the misbehavior to be camouflaged. I've already submitted an RFC, but IMHO it's the code that should be changed. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Charles Mills [charl...@mcn.org] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 9:26 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Friday Follies/Why won't this work?/TSO Rant #387 +1 (SUBMIT) +1 (Doc) +1 (What the H*** is gained by uppercasing a CART where the underlying service supports any 64-bit value? Don't over validate! This is the problem with various utilities that could handle UNIX files except that the utility "validates" the filename and rejects slashes or lowercase letters.) I've done my part on various RCF's but not so far on this one. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 5:53 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Friday Follies/Why won't this work?/TSO Rant #387 Never mind case; when will SUBMIT recognize that 80 is not the only integer? Also, when TSO (sub)commands upper case their input, the documentation should say so in an obvious location as part of the (sub)command description. Finally, when a TSO (sub)command provides the facilities of a documented subroutine or assembler macro, it should not impose additional syntactic constraints or transformations beyond those documented for the underlying services. OTOH, people should RTFM and submit an RCF if they find TFM to be deficient. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Paul Gilmartin [0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 7:34 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Friday Follies/Why won't this work?/TSO Rant #387 On Sun, 24 May 2020 14:26:51 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: > >'MyCart01' (as written, in camel-case) was my intended CART and it is a valid CART: a CART may have any 64-bit value. The problem was that the CONSOLE command uppercased it to MYCART01. Yes, had I written my Rexx in such a way as to uppercase it the problem would have disappeared, but two wrongs don't make a right. > It's far overdue that interfaces quit forcing the limitations of the 029 keypunch on users. Decades ago, I learned that if I need upper case I press the SHIFT key; otherwise I should get what I type. It's fine for functions to be case insensitive, case sensitive, or monocase. It's wrong for upstream processes to second-guess -- they're too often wrong. And it was a design error for Binder to provide a CASE UPPER option. CASE MIXED, compatible with Linkage Editor, should always be in force. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
