Thanks to Bill for his update. I agree with John that IBM should better explain the meaning of the byte and, furthermore, the Cobol behaviour.
In my opinion, from version to version (or single PTF) the Cobol Behaviour could had been changing. Puzzling ! Thanks to everybody, of course I'll give you details as soon as I will receive news from IBM. Massimo 2014-02-14 13:39 GMT+01:00 John Gilmore <[email protected]>: > Is this [SMF record] flags byte recording behavior? Or is it > recording [only] open option(s) specified? > > If the latter, should not opening for update set both the IN and the > OUT bits? How otherwise is the specification of update reflected in > this byte? > > I think Massimo has an adequate basis for consulting IBM, and I should > myself be interested in its explanation of this behavior. There may > be some simple rationale for what is being observed here, but the > implementation of this byte appears to me to have been botched. > > John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
