On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Tom Marchant < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 10:00:41 -0500, John McKown wrote: > > >On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Tom Marchant < > >[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Every time an XPLINK program issues a GET or PUT, it has to make that > >> transition. > >> > > > >Would you mind expanding a bit on the above? Are you talking about doing > >I/O to read or write a z/OS type data set (DCB or ACB)? > > Yes, that's what I meant. Calls to QSAM GET and PUT, as well as other > system > services expect to be passed the address of a standard save area in R13. > XPLINK and XPLINK-64 do things very differently. > I took a quick look at XPLINK. And you're right, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I basically understand the why, as explained in the LE manuals. But why COBOL decided to go with the same, other than inter-operation with C, is beyond my tiny (and shrinking) mind. Even with nested COBOL programs, I don't see COBOL programmers writing "tons" of "itty bitty" COBOL programs. But C/C++ programs do that a lot, especially C++ programmers. > > -- > Tom Marchant > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- "Irrigation of the land with seawater desalinated by fusion power is ancient. It's called 'rain'." -- Michael McClary, in alt.fusion Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
