Gil, I agree, why was zxxP engines developed? I assume for Java like code or ?
Scott On Tuesday, September 6, 2016, Paul Gilmartin < [email protected]> wrote: > 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] <javascript:;> 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
