> Writing multiple members of a PDSE (not PDS) concurrently Who said anything about concurrently? Consider a program to create sequence numbers in every member (or remove them).
> Too often, "is for" is a feckless apologia, paraphrasing "can only ... > although it would be nice ..." The problem isn't that BSAM doesn't handle logical records, the problem is that QSAM doesn't handle repositioning. The distinction between READ and GET is a legitimate one. > Was there a similar analogue for NOTE? Sort of, with limitations. > Did the TSS assembler(?) use those? I believe that all of the compilers, including ASM (F), supported reading source from VISAM with sequence numbers as keys. > (What became of the tradition of ">" quotation marks? I faked them.) I'm using a brain-dead e-mail client. I have to handle quoting by hand. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of Paul Gilmartin [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 7:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Mixing C/C++ with LE-conforming IBM HLASM 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
