On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 16:03:56 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote: >> >> http://www.scala-lang.org/download/ >> http://www.ibm.com/systems/z/os/zos/tools/java/ >> http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.2.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r2.azkd100/azk_getting_started.htm >http://www-947.ibm.com/systems/support/machine_warranties/machine_code/aut.html > >One could argue that this precludes anything not actually written in >the Java language. Or one could argue that it's Java bytecodes or >class files that are or are not eligible, in which case Scala would be >fine. But any argument that says Scala is eligible would work just as >well to argue that COBOL compiled into a Java class would be eligible; >something I expect IBM would not agree to. > Why not? One could similarly argue that HLASM code created by the PL/S compiler is supported by HLASM, but HLASM code created by the Dignus C compiler is not. The telling point is whether the intermediate product conforms to the specifications of the subsequent processor.
>I suppose the bottom line, as always, is that IBM can decide to >interpret this the way it wants at the time it wants. > Sort of. If HLASM fails PL/S output, IBM is free to modify HLASM if they deem that easier than fixing PL/S. IBM probably wouldn't do the same for Dignus C. But Dignus might object strongly if HLASM is violating its own published specifications. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
