> But it occurs to me that one could construct and ACCEPT (or UCLIN "ACCEPT") a > ++USERMOD that adds a part so named as not to conflict with IBM and other > software vendors' part names, and NPRE that usermod in all one's "real" > usermods to prevent them from being ACCEPTed. Of course, one would never > APPLY that only-to-be-NPREed usermod.
Thanks, John! If memory serves me correctly, this is what we were doing. I do remember that there were over 150 usermods to be reapplied for every new release. Some of them had to do with mods for Arabic translation and other location specific things. Bob -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Eells Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 9:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: SMPE: Un-ACCEPTing USERMOD Ed Jaffe wrote: <snip> > Would not NPRE apply equally to APPLY as it would to ACCEPT? Well, yes. But it occurs to me that one could construct and ACCEPT (or UCLIN "ACCEPT") a ++USERMOD that adds a part so named as not to conflict with IBM and other software vendors' part names, and NPRE that usermod in all one's "real" usermods to prevent them from being ACCEPTed. Of course, one would never APPLY that only-to-be-NPREed usermod. To avoid the need to rework the usermod in every release, one could use a ++FUNCTION instead, which is probably closer to a Principle of Least Effort solution. This could provide the safety net the OP (or a later poster) was looking for. -- John Eells IBM Poughkeepsie [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
