On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:26:52 -0500, John McKown wrote: >On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Timothy Sipples wrote: > >> 2. If you package your work up in a dataset -- and I don't have an opinion >> on that -- given the recent discussion about compiler trends I'd say a PDSE >> would be recommended over a PDS. Again, though, I'm not sure you must >> choose. You could publish two formats: a PDSE and a pax/tar file (probably >> pax.Z). > >True. I try to remember to say PDSE, but sometimes I say PDS. I don't use >the old style PDS libraries except where required for some reason. PDSEs >are better for me, despite their still having some "strange" problems (like >latch contention) in z/OS 1.12 (where we are frozen for the remainder of >z/OS's life here). > Do the compilers and assemblers make any distinction between PDS and PDSE? for source input? Can't an unloaded PDSE library be reloaded by IEBCOPY as PDS at the users' discretion, and vice-versa?
I'd expect differences for program object/load module libraries. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
