I may, optionally, do both. I will be distributing this via the CBTTape. So source will be included. I can make the CEESGL usage dependent on a &SYSPARM value. Another possibility is to use LE environment variables in order to specify the use of CEESGL or not at run-time. The "best" of both worlds. I guess. I don't like doing ABENDs, per se. But I guess my introduction to C and UNIX signals has made me like them a bit.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) < shmuel+...@patriot.net> wrote: > In > <caajsdjg5av6yb9rjqg1kachxzapvcwcz9gzt65srhkyegyf...@mail.gmail.com>, > on 08/27/2013 > at 12:51 PM, John McKown <john.archie.mck...@gmail.com> said: > > >So I thought it might be a good idea to use the CEESGL function to > >"throw an exception" instead of just returning a return code which > >could be ignored. Does this sound reasonable? > > Yes. > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT > Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> > We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. > (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- As of next week, passwords will be entered in Morse code. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
