(for example) On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:27:31 -0500, Tom Marchant wrote:
>
>... And in 5.18: ...
>
I'm looking at the Commands manual in:
http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/api/content/nl/en-us/SSLTBW_2.2.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r2.gim1000/toc.htm
o The items in the TOC are not numbered.
o The page headers lack the hierarchy graph present in other manuals
o But the Pub number appears at the top of the TOC.
And the Ref in:
http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/api/content/nl/en-us/SSLTBW_2.2.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r2.gim2000/toc.htm
o The items in the TOC are not numbered.
o The page headers lack the hierarchy graph present in other manuals
o I can find the Pub number nowhere.
Perhaps the PDFs are better. But why do the HTML versions need to be
so deficient? I don't want to download a whole volume in order to check
one option.
Can't IBM do better? Each release seems to have a different set of defects.
(Heavens forfend that they should use different tools to generate PDF and
the HTML resulting in the sections' being numbered differently.)
>Feel free to submit an RCF for the ++MOD section of the reference.
>
It'll take more than that.
LEPARM seems chaotic, as if it has never been planned, just thrown together
(like HLASM). As if the designers couldn't agree among themselves nor with
customer requirements whether the LEPARM DLIB subentry or the UTILITY
entry or the option on the ++MOD should predominate, nor whether the
subentry should be updated with UCLIN or MCS, so someone adopted
LEPARM(STD) as a compromise to satisfy a vocal minority.
Thanks,
gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
