On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 10:26:56 -0400, Charles Mills wrote: >You know, IMHO IBM blew it when the 31-bit thing came along and they came up >with a bunch of "design patches" to QSAM like the DBCE. They should have >gone the "file handle" route where the control blocks were hidden from the >using programmers. You could continue to use 24-bit DCBs as-is for as long >as you liked, but if you wanted anything new you got a pointer to a control >block whose exact format was DFSMS's business alone and was subject to >change. If you wanted information about the "dataset object" that it pointed >to, you called an API. > But still, will that be a 24-bit, a 31-bit, or a 64-bit API? UNIX and C benefit from a culture where programmers are willing to recompile in order to exploit new function, and understand the risks of meddling with opaque data objects.
-- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
