>It appears that STCKCONV provides a greater variety of output >formats than TIME (am I right?) There appears to me to be a variety of outputs for each. I don't have an opinion on which is "greater"
>So a programmer might use a TIME; CONVTOD; STCKCONV sequence >to get one of those other formats. Just slightly convoluted. Extremely convoluted. They would just use STCK/STCKF/STCKE then STCKCONV. >There's an example in the Reference of "9FE4781301ABE000", an apparently >"random 8-byte value", which converts to 1989-02-19 05:24:13.942462. >But the Reference doesn't show any result. (It seems to agree with your >chronology of STCKCONV. Perhaps a developer did STCK and pasted the >output into the Reference.) Most programming examples in the reference books do not show results. They are primarily intended to show you a way to invoke the service. This example does that. Examples may also show how to deal with the output data (but that seems unnecessary in this case). >I might suggest as an alternative .... In my opinion, it would not help anybody's understanding of the service to have a detailed example about leap seconds, because the specific date/time is unimportant to understanding use of the service. But if you think it important that a reader understand the lack of leap seconds processing, that's reasonable to describe. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
