The question isn't whether they should be experts; the question is whether they should be offering uninforme4d guesses as syntax rules. IMHO they should be providing tested examples and referring readers to the Rexx documentation for details.
The same applies to authors giving incorrect rules for JCL instead of referring the reader to the JCL reference. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Jon Perryman <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 10:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: As a long-time Rexx programmer On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 14:40:05 -0400, Phil Smith III <[email protected]> wrote: >...am I the only one who SMH at the documentation for things like ISFEXEC > (https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.4.0?topic=language-issuing-commands-isfexec > )? > It reads like it was written by someone who doesn't quite understand how > variables/literals work in Rexx: Why would anyone expect SDSF support & dev to know REXX when it's not part of their job? REXX documentation belongs with REXX and in the case of quoting, it's only mentioned because SDSF support received multiple calls caused by special characters. Since most people go directly to the examples, it doesn't surprise me this has never been corrected. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
