Right you are. Parenthetically, no need for a 24-bit API because the whole point would be to allow QSAM to exploit 32-bit.
Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: C issue - 'struct stat' 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
