On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:36:37 -0500, John Gilmore wrote: >Does this "existing code" do updates only after checking to ensure >that the In bit is not set (off)? > >I doubt that. Compatibility arguments are certainly not dismissible; >some, even many, of them are substantive; but they are too often >advanced as a convenient, not at all substantive rationale for doing >nothing. > >However that may be, I have now devoted more time to this issue than >it perhaps deserves. Enough! > Existing code would only be affected if a new requirement was introduced that the MACRF IN bit be turned on prior to OPEN when updates were intended.
In the other scenario, in which the MACRF IN bit is turned on within OPEN, I said nothing about a compatibility issue. The problem with that approach is that there is no "open for update" or anything else by which OPEN can determine if updates to existing records are intended, rather than changes that don't require reading records first. Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
