This is a case of documentation attempting to replicate information in other documentation. Even when the author gets it right initially, the documentation is always at risk of being blindsided by future changes. I see this all of the time in IBM documentation that (incorrectly) gives rules for other components, e.g., language processor documentation that incorrectly describes JCL.
-- 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 11, 2022 2:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: ISFSLASH, MGCRE? ...? On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 10:11:51 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: > ... >Quoting the command preserves the lower case, even with the embedded blanks. >(No, I did not test every permutation.) >/F procname,'How now, Brown Cow' >App received 'How now, Brown Cow' > I had been working on the hypothesis that ISFSLASH uses MGCRE MF=E to issue the command. However, in the doc for that I find: Operator commands may contain the following characters: A to Z 0 to 9 ' # $ & ( ) * + , - . / ¢ < | ! ; ¬ % _ > ? : @ " = No space; no lower case. Should I look elsewhere or submit an RCF? Is this an example of a mid-level interface over specifying characteristics of a lower-level function? -- 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
