Thank you for your reply. The TSO/E REXX Reference documents GETMSG. It
also provides some examples of using GETMSG. Example 4 is what I started with.
It doesn't show CONSPROF. Things are working much better with CONSPROF. A
healthy dose of RTFM has been prescribed.
Thanks again, Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 8:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: TSO REXX and GRS Commnad Output
In
<cc42e2f56d60f24fb8a6bcc639d1d96306ca5...@samtcasxmb13.usa.dce.usps.gov>,
on 10/02/2013
at 06:52 PM, "Hansen, Dave L - Eagan, MN" <[email protected]>
said:
>We are running z/OS V1R13 and the TSO/E REXX Reference shows some
>"Examples".
I have no idea what example you were looking at, but that manual is very clear
on needing CONSPROF if you want to retrieve messages.
To use GETMSG, you must:
Have CONSOLE command authority
Have solicited or unsolicited messages stored rather than
displayed at the terminal during a console session. Your
installation may have set up a console profile for you so
that the messages are not displayed. You can also use the
TSO/E CONSPROF command to specify that solicited or
unsolicited messages should not be displayed during a
console session.
>My Return code is 4.
4 GETMSG processing was successful. However,
GETMSG did not retrieve the message.
There are several reasons why GETMSG may not
be able to retrieve the message based on the
arguments you specify on the function call.
GETMSG returns a function code of 4 if one of
| | the following occurs: |
No messages were available to be retrieved
|
The messages did not match the search
criteria you specified on the function |
| | call
You specified the time argument and the
time limit expired before the message was |
| | available. |
>I noticed that while I traced the above EXEC that it looked like I got
>the messages back to my terminal screen.
Expected, given the rc 4.
>So I tried OUTTRAP. No luck.
This is one of several annoying cases where IBM uses TPUT instead of PUTLINE; I
suspect that in this case they had no choice.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
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
[email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
