On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 18:31:37 -0400, John Eells wrote: >ACCJCLIN is set in the DLIB zone in question? > Yup. Thanks. FWIW (rationalization), I was dealing with UCLIN composed by two different programmers.
Why would anyone ever want not to ACCEPT JCLIN? Well, the RM suggests: o Downward compatibility. o Economy of disk space. I'm not much concerned with either. >Paul Gilmartin wrote: >> ... >> (Picking nit: The message is incorrect insofar as the JCLIN was not INLINE, >> but in a RELFILE. I suppose that you could argue that the command: >> >> ++ JCLIN RELFILE(1) . >> >> ... appears inline though it refers to a relative file. But that's >> sophistry even >> more extreme than my pedantry.) On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 19:58:07 -0400, John Gilmore wrote: > ... >A sophistry is an appealing, plausible, often intricate argument that >is, finally, fallacious. ... > >Its applicability as a description of this SMP/E usage is thus not at >all obvious to me. > Ah! And that's your pedantry. I was deeming it sophistry to call a relative file INLINE merely because the command invoking it appeared inline. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
