On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:56:33 -0500, Barry Lichtenstein wrote: >... (NORENT and REFR). The binder treats reusability as a hierarchy, REFR >implies RENT, ...
They saved a bit by allowing the reusability to have 4 values instead of 8. (NORENT and REFR) could have made sense if a programmer had relied on them to serialize access to shared data areas. Well, no. CSV would simply load another instance. >On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 18:47:26 -0400 Steve Smith wrote: >> >> Seems like deja vu. For all practical purposes, RENT and REFR (which >> implies RENT) have the same effect (that may be a tautology). >> >> For whatever reasons, RENT & REFR ... or for the ability to >> tolerate a refresh. Neither of those things absolutely requires >> non-modification, so one wonders why IBM wandered off into those tangents. >> I'm trying to envision what is needed for modified code to tolerate a refresh. Field the protection exception; proceed with the refresh; and re-drive the failed operation ab ovo? I suppose. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
