OK, I can see that as a reason. Personally I would prefer an explicit test in the code to a remotely-specified out-of-code-body jump, but that's more of a style issue than one of substance.
Peter -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 5:04 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXECIO - Was: Great quote on http://slashdot.org (changes frequently) In <985915eee6984740ae93f8495c624c6c2319906...@jscpcwexmaa1.bsg.ad.adp.com>, on 07/01/2013 at 12:34 PM, "Farley, Peter x23353" <peter.far...@broadridge.com> said: >Implementation of standards is only useful if the feature is really >needed. I can't think of a reason for needing NOTREADY with classic >datasets on z/OS when SYSDSN will tell you whether the file is >available or not. The obvious reason is for detecting end of file without an explicit test. -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
