The site that asked me seemed to think it important. On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 3:16 PM Wayne Bickerdike <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lionel, > > Does the storage not dropped create a problem? Or is this just a thing you > want cleaned up? > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 4:02 AM Paul Gilmartin < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:46:25 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote: > > > > > >This is not meant to be snide, just a citation of sorts: these behaviors > > were discussed long ago when Rexx was introduced to VM/CMS, are > established > > canon. (Is that redundant? Can there be UNestablished canon?) > > > > > I used to know that. Perhaps I saw it in the (CMS?) Ref. That has > gotten > > thicker and harder to search. I see no information about storage in: > > <https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.5.0?topic=instructions-drop> > > > > And I once considered writing an asynchronous ATTACH and find no > > description of whether REXX storage compaction is likely to move > > storage addressed by IRXEXCOM. I use SYSCALL SPAWN instead. > > > > -- > > gil > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > > -- > Wayne V. Bickerdike > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Lionel B. Dyck <>< Website: http://www.lbdsoftware.com "Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you are, reputation merely what others think you are." - John Wooden ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
