On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 16:07:21 +0000, Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The syntax is self-evident >Alas, no; if it were the tech writers wouldn't consistently get it wrong. No one said tech writes got it wrong nor consistently wrong. The original complaint was about unusual and incomplete. REXX quoting, concatenation, address SDSF ISFEXEC DA & more. Why have a repeat where SDSF & ISFEXEC identify the environment. The SDSF syntax is self evident which is a string as used in the SDSF batch interface. ADDRESS SDSF and quoting is a REXX paradigm documented in REXX. The documentation doesn't require explanation of these because they are fully documented in REXX. It would certainly be helpful knowing REXX but it is not a requirement. >> IBM designed REXX to completely avoid the need for product developers to >> understand REXX. >In some cases, but if you want to defnne functions While I wouldn't recommend it, you don't need to understand the REXX language to write a REXX function. That being said, most products rarely create REXX functions because of possible naming conflicts. Instead, an ADDRESS environment is created but even that is not a requirement. E.g. when running in TSO skip creating an ADDRESS environment and write a simple TSO command which by the way is called using the TSO environment. > or to set REXX variables then you need to understand a bit more about the API. Again, having a knowledge of REXX would be useful but by no means shouldn't stop anyone from using the API to create variables. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
