> Begin forwarded message: > > From: Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: IEBGENER SYSIN Comments? > Date: December 19, 2016 at 8:14:21 PM CST > To: [email protected] > Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 18:45:58 -0600, Edward Gould wrote >> >> Sorry every utilitty has its own rules, just like languages (e.g. (no GOTO >> in ALC but COBOL has one) >> ALC has a syntax a * in column 1 with a blank tells the assembler its a >> comment. I “think” in COBOL a comment is a C in column 6) (don’t remember >> its been years since I have looked at a COBOL program. >> Get over it there are rules all over the place. >>> > There are good rules and there are harmful rules. It matters little *how* > one codes a comment. It matters much that there is no way to code a > comment. You cited a couple languages that have different comment > conventions. Add JCL, Rexx, POSIX Shell script, ... for other comment > conventions. All would be worse off if, like utility control files, they had > no way to code comments. > > IBM doesn't care.
Let say they are indifferent. There are stated rules for all utilities. You must obey them. The utilities you speak of probably haven’t been enhanced in many years. Unless you find a real bug (or they break because of some new restrictions) IBM won’t touch them. One utility that comes to mind is IEHMOVE. It essentially is of no use in the current environment and can/should be deleted. Ed > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
