On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 19:43:23 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: >> OK. It requires multiple DCBs.
>Yes, and if I'm doing something with every member of a PDS then I really don't >want all of those OPENs. > If I'm doing something with multiple members, e.g. comparing two members, I consider it good design to use one DDNAME, two DCBs and two OPENs. Isn't the alternative an nightmare of ping-ponging NOTEs and POINTs? What would ISRSUPC do? Writing multiple members of a PDSE (not PDS) concurrently should probably be done with multiple DCBs. "doing something with every member of a PDS" is probably better done serially than concurrently. >> A member is not named when it is created, but only at the point of STOW >Thanks. Yes, the same issue exists with VPAM. >> BPAM shoud support GET and PUT. >Why? BSAM is for dealing with blocks. Although it would be nice if QSAM had >equivalents to equivalents to NOTE and POINT. > Too often, "is for" is a feckless apologia, paraphrasing "can only ... although it would be nice ..." >In TSS, you use SETL to point to a logical VPAM record. Check the references I >gave you. > I got information overload. Thanks for filtering for me. Was there a similar analogue for NOTE? Did the TSS assembler(?) use those? (What became of the tradition of ">" quotation marks? I faked them.) Thanks again, gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
